
.«*«* 



iff 



< o 






,**-«* v<^ b// * ^ v.. 



v* •; 



vv 



«feV 








* . , i • .0-' *$> 















o* .•••._ *<: 



*V .."»■ 






*bV 



• 4L 1 






«>* ♦•.«' v* 



-4 q. »^ 






• AT ^f» « 



^ .."•« ^ 



c5 »** 



. *, 



C°* .*^>>o 



Aq^ 



♦♦**♦♦ 









, i- v ^ 



,°^ '.I 



** o* • * 


















.4> ..... *^. a^ -i-.. 



-o.. *'^'' ^ 

.•*^ 1 






~o> 


















• • • .v* 











.**%. 






Doctrine of the Trinity 



THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE 



BY 



RICHARD N. DAVIES 







-vc- 



CINCINNATI: CRANSTON & STOWE 

NEW YORK: HUNT & EATON 

1891 



$2- 



Copyright 

By CRANSTON & STOWE, 
1891, 



Ta dvco (ppoveire. 

Col. ni, 2. 

"Eternal, undivided Lord, 
Co-equal One in Three, 
On thee all faith, all hope be placed; 
All love be paid to thee!" 



TO THE READER. 



IF the theologian of extensive reading and mature 
thought finds in these pages but little that merits 
his special attention, I wish him to remember that 
they have been written for those who are just begin- 
ning their Biblical studies. 

I desire to furnish the young student of divinity 
with a plain, courteous, and trustworthy answer to the 
objections of those who reject the doctrine of a Tri- 
une Deity. 

I acknowledge my great indebtedness to Rev. 
Richard Gear Hobbs, A. M., for the carefulness with 
which he has read and corrected the manuscript. 

May the ever-blessed Spirit guide the reader of 

this essay into the knowledge of " the true God and 

eternal life!" 

THE AUTHOR 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



PAGE. 

Doctrine of the Trinity Stated, . 11 

Importance of the Doctrine, 13 

The Unity of God, 14 

Plurality of Persons in the Godhead, 20 

A Plurality of Three Persons in the Godhead, 22 

Direct Evidence of the Trinity in Unity, 23 

The Supreme Divinity of Christ, . . 33 

Christ the Jehovah of the Old Testament, 40 

The Jehovah- Angel was the Supreme God, ...... 41 

The Jehovah- Angel was not the Father, 51 

This Angel was Christ in his Pre-existent State, . . . . 52 

Divine Titles ascribed to Christ, 56 

" Jehovah," "Lord," "God," : 56 

Objections to the Eternal Sonship of Christ, Ill 

Divine Attributes ascribed to Christ, 113 

Eternity, 114 

Omnipresence, 120 

Omniscience, 127 

Omnipotence, 140 

Divine Acts ascribed to Christ, 144 

Divine Worship rendered to Christ, 147 

Arian Notions reviewed, 149 

Objections to the Worship of Christ, 159 

7 



8 CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

The Humanity of Christ, 161 

The Kenotic Theory, 162 

Objections to Kenosis, 170 

The Real Humanity of Christ, 171 

The Union of Divinity and Humanity in Christ, .... 178 
Objections to the Doctrine of the Union of Deity and 

Humanity in Christ, 191 

Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit, 193 

Scriptural Proofs of the Doctrine, 195 

I. Personality, 195 

II. Deity, 220 

APPENDIX. 
Pluralis Majestaticus, 227 



The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 



THE HOLY TRINITY. 



ANY inquiry concerning the nature of the ever-blessed 
God should be conducted with the profound rever- 
ence that we owe to the only absolutely perfect Being. 
Uncreate and eternal in his existence, infinite in all of his 
perfections, it is not possible for a finite being to discover 
his nature, nor even perfectly to comprehend it after it 
has been revealed to him. The sacred Scriptures contain 
all that is known on earth concerning the nature and the 
mode of existence of the Divine Being. This revelation 
of himself is not found in any one formulated statement, 
but must be gleaned from the entire body of the Scrip- 
tures, by a collection and right comparison of the differ- 
ent statements made concerning him. 

The prayerful study of the Bible, from the day of 
Pentecost down, has convinced men that Almighty God 
exists as a Trinity of co-equal persons in the unity of the 
Godhead. To state this doctrine briefly and correctly, 
and to guard it against the false teachings of Arius and 
other errorists, the believers in the Trinity were necessi- 
tated to adopt the phrase, "The Trinity in Unity," which, 
for convenience' sake, has been abbreviated into "The 
Trinity." 

A more extended statement of the doctrine of the 
Trinity may be found in the Articles of Religion of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church : 

"Article I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. There is 
but one living and true God, everlasting, without body 
or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the 
maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. 

11 



12 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of 
one substance, power, and eternity, — the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost." 

The doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is a matter of 
pure revelation. Like the doctrine of the omnipresence 
of God, while not contrary to reason, it is superior to 
mere human reason — probably is superior to angelic rea- 
son — and is comprehended by God only. In the light of 
the Holy Scriptures we apprehend it, but we do not com- 
prehend it. " We lay hold upon it, ad prehendo; we hang 
upon it, our souls live by it. But we do not take it all in, 
we do not comprehend it; for it is a necessary attribute 
of God that he is incomprehensible." (Trench's Study of 
Words, p. 110.) This being true, human reason furnishes 
no proof either for or against the doctrine of the Trinity. 
Keason neither affirms nor denies it, but is rightly em- 
ployed in the examination of the Biblical evidences of the 
soundness of the doctrine. It is doubtful whether there 
are any types or symbols of the Trinity. Efforts to illus- 
trate it are of questionable propriety; it is better to con- 
fine ourselves to the consideration of the Divine revela- 
tions concerning it. 

The Bible declares plainly and repeatedly that there 
is but one God. But it also makes known to us three 
distinct persons, by the names of the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Spirit. It invests each of these three per- 
sons with the attributes and titles that belong to Deity; 
it ascribes to each of these three persons the acts that 
the Deity has been known to do ; it represents each of these 
three persons as receiving that supreme worship that is 
properly paid only to the infinite God; thus showing that 
each of these three persons is really and truly God. The 
, unity of God, taken in connection with the supreme di- 
vinity of the Father, the supreme divinity of the Son, 
and the supreme divinity of the Holy Spirit, abundantly 
proves that these three persons co-exist in the unity of the 



1 TS IMP OR TANCE. 1 3 

Godhead ; or, in other words, that God exists as the 
Trinity in Unity. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE. 

The importance of the doctrine of the Trinity is easily 
shown. "The knowledge of God is fundamental to re- 
ligion ; and as we know nothing of him but what he has 
been pleased to reveal, and as these revelations have all 
moral ends, and are designed to promote piety and not 
to gratify curiosity, all that he has revealed of himself in 
particular must partake of that character of fundamental 
importance which belongs to the knowledge of God in the 
aggregate. 'This is life eternal, that they might know 
thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast 
sent/ Nothing, therefore, can disprove the fundamental 
importance of the Trinity in Unity but that which will 
disprove it to be a doctrine of Scripture." (Watson's In- 
stitutes of Theology, Vol. I, p. 452.) 

If the doctrine of the Trinity is not true, and we wor- 
ship the Son or the Holy Spirit, then we are guilty of 
idolatry; for we are worshiping something else besides 
God. If the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is true, and 
we do not worship the Son and the Holy Spirit, then we 
are guilty of withholding our worship from two persons 
of the Godhead. If Jesus Christ is not God as well as 
man , then his sacrificial death sinks in value ; instead of 
being a sacrificial atonement for man, made by one who 
was God as well as man, it is merely the death of a 
martyr. 

If Jesus Christ is not supremely divine, then he must 
be of limited perfections ; and it becomes impossible for us 
to have perfect faith in him as our Savior. 

The apostolic benediction, 2 Cor. xiii, 14, is a sublime 
invocation, in which the love, the grace, and the com- 
munion of the Triune Godhead is invoked upon his read- 
ers. But if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are 



14 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

not co-equally and supremely divine, if the Unitarian no- 
tion that the Son is only a creature and the Holy Spirit is 
simply an attribute, — if this notion be accepted, then the 
benediction becomes the invocation of the grace of a crea- 
ture, the love of God, and the communion of an attribute. 
The foregoing considerations clearly prove that it is of the 
first importance to establish the truth of the doctrine of 
the Trinity. "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity — that is, 
of the living and only true God, Father, Son, and Spirit, 
the source of creation, redemption, and sanctification — has 
in all ages been regarded as the sacred symbol and the 
fundamental article of the Christian system, in distinction 
alike from the abstract monotheism of Judaism and Mo- 
hammedanism, and from the dualism and polytheism of the 
heathen religions. The denial of this doctrine implies neces- 
sarily also, directly or indirectly, a denial of the divinity of 
Christ and the Holy Spirit, together with the divine char- 
acter of the work of redemption and sanctification." 
(Philip Schaff, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, 1858, p. 726.) 

THE UNITY OF GOD. 

The unity of God is the necessary foundation of the doc- 
trine of the Trinity in Unity, and must never be lost sight of 
when discussing that doctrine ; for there can not be any 
proper conception of the Holy Trinity if the truth of the di- 
vine unity is overlooked or ignored. The Bible reveals the 
unity of God in these words : * ' There is none like unto the 
Lord our God " (Exodus viii, 10) ; " There is none like unto 
God, O Jeshurun" (Deut. xxxiii, 26, Rev. Ver.) ; "Thou 
shalt have no other gods before me " (Exodus xx, 3) ; " The 
Lord he is God; there is none else beside him" (Deut. 
iv. 35, 39). See also 2 Sam. vii, 22; 1 Kings viii, 60; 
1 Chron. xvii, 20; Joel ii, 27; 1 Cor. viii, 4. "Hear O 
Israel : the Lord our God is one Lord " (Deut. vi, 4) ; 
"Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one" 
(Mark xii, 29, Rev. Ver.) ; " Who is God save the Lord?" 



THE UNITY OF GOD. 15 

(Psalm xviii, 31) ; " Before me there was no God found, 
neither shall there be after me " (Isaiah xliii, 10 ; xliv, 
6, 8; xlv, 5, 6, 14, 18, 21, 22; xlvi, 9) ; "The only true 
God" (John xvii, 3) ; "The only wise God" (Rom. xvi, 
27, Rev. Yer.) ; " The only God" (1 Tim. i, 17, Rev. Ver.) ; 
11 There is one God" (1 Cor. viii, 6, Rev. Ver.) ; "God is 
one" (Gal. iii, 20) ; "There is one God" (1 Tim. ii, 5). 

Dr. Channing objects that the unity of God denies the 
doctrine of the Trinity, proving it to be impossible. This 
is so common an objection with Unitarians that it is not 
necessary to quote authors; nevertheless it is a mere beg- 
ging of the question. The doctrine of the unity of God 
does not teach anything about the manner of the divine 
existence; but, as Lawson states it, that "God is so one 
that there is not, there can not be, another God." God 
"is one as to essence and three as to persons; unity and 
trinality are affirmed of the same being, but in different 
senses." (Raymond's Theol., Vol. I, p. 384.) " The true 
Scripture doctrine of the unity of God, as set forth in 
Deut. yi, 4, and similar texts, will remove this objec- 
tion. It is not the Socinian notion of unity. Theirs is 
the unity of one, ours the unity of three. We do not, 
however, as they seem to suppose, think the divine es- 
sence divisible and participated by and shared among 
three persons ; but wholly and undividedly possessed and 
enjoyed. Whether, therefore, we address our prayers and 
adorations to the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, we address 
the same adorable Being, the one living and true God. 
'Jehovah, our Aleim, is one Jehovah/" (Watson's Inst., 
Vol. I, p. 475.) 

The unity of God denies that he has any compeer or 
rival ; it asserts his proper Deity over and above all of the 
false gods of the heathen. It is the divine protest against 
dualism, polytheism, and pantheism; and the same Bible 
that teaches this unity of God also teaches the co-equal 
Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 



16 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Dr. Wm. G. Eliot (Unitarian), in his "Doctrines of 
Christianity, " pp. 18, 19, objects that Christ teaches that 
the Father is God to the exclusion of himself. The ob- 
jection consists of Dr. Eliot's statement, quotations of texts, 
and comment upon the texts. I will give the objection in 
full, and then answer it in detail. 

"Christ uniformly spoke of God as his Father and 
of the Father as the only God. Almost his first re- 
corded words are these : * Thou shalt worship the Lord 
thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.' He prayed to 
God as his Father, and taught his disciples to pray in 
the same words : ' Our Father, who art in heaven.' 
Upon one occasion, when some one called him ■ Good 
Master,' he answered: ' Why callest thou me good? 
there is none good but one, that is, God.' Upon another 
occasion, when asked what was the first commandment of 
all, he commenced in the very words of the law spoken 
from Mt. Sinai : ' Hear, O Israel : the Lord our God is 
one Lord ; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first and 
great commandment.' Observe how solemn is this affirma- 
tion of the old doctrine ; it is a re-enactment of the great 
central law of the Jewish religion, without one word of 
amendment or qualification. Can we ask any thing more ? 
But we have more, if possible. If this were all, it might 
perhaps be argued that the word ' God' includes the idea 
of tri-personality in the Father, Son, and Spirit; but the 
Savior has forbidden such a construction, by teaching us that 
the God of whom he spoke is the Father only. We once 
more refer to the words of our text, the words of prayer to 
the Father : * This is life eternal, that they may know thee, 
the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.' 
He speaks of himself, the Son, as a separate being, depend- 
ent on the Father. * Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also 
may glorify thee.' Again, in his prediction of his heavenly 



THE UNITY OF GOD. 17 

exaltation, he says : ' Hereafter shall the Son of man sit 
on the right hand of the power of God.' So when in the 
garden of Gethsemane he prayed to the Father, ' Not 
my will, but thine, be done;' aud on the cross, in the time 
of his last agony, 'My God, my God, why hast thou for- 
saken me?' and yet once more, after his resurrection, he 
said to his disciples : ' I ascend unto my Father and to 
your Father, to my God and to your God.' Thus, through 
his whole ministry, he used the same uniform and familiar 
language. I ask you to remember that this language was 
addressed to those who had no conception of any other 
doctrine than the absolute unity of God. How must they 
have understood it? I think just as we understand it now, 
when we say: ' To us there is but one God, even the 
Father.'" 

The first text quoted by Dr. Eliot is Matthew iv, 1.0: 
"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only 
shalt thou serve." These words do not prove that Christ 
is not divine, nor that he is not an object of supreme wor- 
ship. They do unquestionably prove that Deity is the 
only proper object of worship, and are in perfect harmony 
with our Lord's declaration that "all men should honor 
the Son, even as they honor the Father" (John v, 23); 
hence Jesus Christ and the Father are both persons in the 
same supreme Deity whom we have been taught to wor- 
ship. It is true that Christ, in the days of his humilia- 
tion, prayed to God as his Father — for since his incarna- 
tion he is man as well as God — but it is not true that 
he taught his disciples to pray in the same words that he 
used himself. He taught them to say, "Our Father" 
(Matt, vi, 9) ; but we have no evidence that he ever spoke 
to the Father and called him "Our Father." He spoke 
of him as "My Father," he addressed him as "Father;" 
but he never addressed him as "Our Father." The dis- 
ciples of Christ are "the sons of God" by creation and 
adoption; but our Lord is "the Son of God," not by cre- 

2 



18 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

ation or adoption, but by nature. Any man who be- 
lieves in Christ may properly be called "a son of God;" 
but Jesus Christ is the only being who can be properly 
called "The Son of God." The title, 6 olbq too Seoo (the 
Son of God), is never applied in the New Testament to 
any single person except our Lord Jesus Christ. The 
disciples have, to a limited extent, the same moral attri- 
butes with the Father; but Christ, as " the only begotteu 
Son of God," has the same attributes, both moral and 
natural ; hence, like the Father, he is eternal, omnipres- 
ent, omniscient, omnipotent, and immutably holy. Hav- 
ing these attributes, he co-exists with the Father as one of 
the persons in the Triune Godhead, and as such he is en- 
titled to, and receives, the same worship that is paid to 
the Eternal Father. 

Christ said to a certain ruler: "Why callest thou me 
good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark 
x, 17, 18.) Christ did not deny that he himself was 
"good," nor did he deny that he himself was God; but 
the ruler had not acknowledged him to be God, and our 
Lord's question to the ruler was based upon that fact. 
It was as much as to say, As you do not confess me to be 
God, why call me good? Our Lord said: "There is none 
good but one, that is, God." It would follow from this 
that whoever is perfectly good must be God; but our 
Lord is perfectly, infinitely good, hence must be God. 
"Our Lord's answer, ... so far from giving auy 
countenance to Socinian error, is a pointed rebuke 
of the very view of Christ which they who deny his di- 
vinity entertain. He was no 'good Master' to be singled 
out from men on account of his pre-eminence over his kind 
in virtue and wisdom. God sent us no such Christ as 
this, nor may any of the sons of men be thus called good. 
He was one with Him who only is good, the Son of the 
Father, come not to teach us merely, but to beget us anew 
by the divine power which dwells in him. The low view, 



TEE UNITY OF GOD. 19 

then, which this applicant takes of him and his office, he 
at once rebukes and annuls, as he had done before in the 
case of Nicodemus. . . . The dilemma, as regards the 
Socinians, has been well put (see Stier II, 283, note), 
either, ■ There is none good but God ; Christ is good ; 
therefore Christ is God ;' or, ' There is none good but God; 
Christ is not God ; therefore Christ is not good.' " (Al- 
ford, in loco.) 

That our Savior's quotation from Deuteronomy vi, 4, 
as recorded in Mark xii, 29, 30, is in perfect harmony 
with the Trinity in Unity, has been shown in the quota- 
tion previously given from Richard Watson. The 
words of Jesus in his priestly prayer (John xvii, 3), 
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the 
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent," 
are set in their proper light by the following comments 
from Fletcher and Horseley : 

"If 'the only true God' be a truly divine and ever- 
lasting Father, he has a truly divine and everlasting Son ; 
for how can he be truly God the Father who hath not 
truly a divine Son?" "'He that honoreth not the Son 
honoreth not the Father.' 'Whosoever denieth the Son, 
the same hath not the Father;' because the opposite and 
relative terms and natures of Father and Son necessarily 
suppose each other." (Fletcher, Vol. Ill, p. 552.) 

"To know Jesus Christ is here made by our Savior 
equivalent, in its eternal consequences, to knowing the 
Father. Can this apply to any merely finite being? 
Unitarians may say that to know Jesus Christ is to know 
the will of God, as delivered by Jesus Christ. But it is 
not knowing the will of God, but doing it, that will secure 
us eternal life. To know Jesus Christ is, therefore, to 
know him as represented in the gospel as God and Man." 
(Horseley's Tracts, pp. 167, 168.) 

John xvii, 1, "Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also 
may glorify thee," proves that the Father and the Son are 



20 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

distinct persons, but it does not prove that they are sepa- 
rate beings. The glory that Christ here asks of the Father 
is the same in kind and degree with the glory that the 
Father had determined that men should render to Christ. 
(See John v, 23.) Furthermore, the glory that Christ 
here asks of the Father is the same glory that he had with 
the Father in the unity of the Godhead "before the 
world was." (Verse 5.) 

Christ predicted his heavenly exaltation: "Hereafter 
shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of 
God." (Luke xxii, 69.) These words would seem to refer 
to the manifestation of his glorified humanity, as a part- 
ner in the exercise of God's universal government, and are 
in perfect harmony with, and rest upon, the great truth of 
his co-equality with the Father. That they were under- 
stood as a claim to co-equality with the Father is evident 
from the fact that when he spoke them the high-priest 
judged him guilty of blasphemy and deserving of death. 
(Matt, xxvi, 63-66; Mark xiv, 61-64; Luke xxii, 69-71.) 

The Biblical evidence proving the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity in Unity will now be presented. Attention will be 
asked in the first place to evidence proving that there is a 

PLURALITY OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. 

This evidence is drawn from the fact that the Divine 
Being has used such plural personal pronouns as "us" 
and " our." 

Genesis i, 26 : "And God said, Let us make man in our 
image, after our likeness." 

Unitarians object that if the use of plural pronouns by 
God proves a plurality of persons in the Godhead, then the 
use of a singular pronoun by God must limit the Godhead 
to a single person. But this does not necessarily follow. 
If the use of plural pronouns proves a plurality of persons 
in the Godhead, then the use of a singular pronoun can 
not disprove it, but must be in harmony with it. When 



PLURALITY OF PERSONS. 21 

the Godhead speaks as a unity, it appropriately uses the 
singular pronouns; but inasmuch as the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit speak of each other, and also to each other, is 
it not reasonable to suppose that any one of the Sacred 
Three, when speaking of their joint act in creating man, 
would use the plural pronouns "us" and "our" to desig- 
nate their joint work in creation? In the text quoted 
above note the following item: 1. There is a speaker, 
"God said;" 2. A person, er persons, spoken to, "us," 
"our;" 3. The words spoken, "Let us make man;" 
4. The party speaking asks of the party spoken to a co- 
operation in a specific work, "Let us make man;" 5. The 
party spoken to forms one or more persons of the "us" 
who are addressed ; 6. There is a plurality of persons en- 
gaged in the creation of man, and whose common image 
(" our image," " our likeness,") was to be borne by the man 
whom they created. To resolve this text into an instance 
of the so-called "plurality of majesty," is to imagine the 
Supreme Deity as indulging in a meaningless soliloquy. 
The text is a record of things said by one person to an- 
other. The party spoken to can not be angels, because 
the words, "Let us make," is an invitation to create; 
creation is an act of omnipotence, and angels can not join 
in it; "and because the phrases, * our image,* * our like- 
ness/ when transferred into the third person of the narra- 
tive, become ' his image,' ' the image of God' (verse 27), 
and thus limit the pronouns to God himself. Does the 
plurality, then, point to a plurality of attributes in the 
divine nature? This can not be, because a plurality of 
qualities exists in Everything, without at all leading to the 
application of the plural number to the individual, and 
because such a plurality does not warrant the expression, 
'Let us make.' Only a plurality of persons can justify 
the phrase. Hence we are forced to conclude that the 
plural pronoun indicates a plurality of persons or hypostases 
in the Divine Being." (Murphy on Genesis.) 



22 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Genesis, hi, 22 : "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man 
is become as one of us." 

The words " one of us" indicate a plurality of persons 
comprehended in the word "us," one of whom was the 
speaker, the others were the persons spoken to. That 
these words were spoken of angels, is destitute of all 
evidence, and utterly unlikely. Is there any case in the 
Bible in which God associates either angels or any other 
finite beings with himself in this manner? Mark the 
words. God does not say, "Is become like us," but, "Is 
become as one of us ;" thus indicating a plurality of persons 
in the Godhead, one of whom speaks to the others. 

Similar evidence may be drawn from Gen. xi, 7, and 
Isa. vi, 8. 

A PLURALITY OF THREE PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. 

It is not merely that God, by the use of plural pronouns, 
has revealed himself as a plurality of persons existing in 
one Godhead, "but that three persons, and three persons 
only, are spoken of in the Scriptures under divine titles, 
each having the peculiar attributes of divinity ascribed to 
him ; and yet that the first and leading principle of the 
same book, which speaks thus of the character and works 
of these persons, should be that there is but one God." 
"Let this point then be examined, and it will be seen 
even that the very number three has this pre-eminence; 
that the application of these names and powers is restrained 
to it, and never strays beyond it ; and that those who con- 
fide in the testimony of God rather than in the opinions 
of men have sufficient Scriptural reason to distinguish 
their faith from the unbelief of others by avowing them- 
selves Trinitarians." (Watson's Inst., Vol. I, p. 469.) 

The following quotations are presented as evidence that 
three divine persons are frequently mentioned in the 
Holy Scriptures : 

Luke iii, 21, 22, at the baptism of Christ, there is 



THE TRINITY IN UNITY. 23 

mentioned the Father, who proclaims Christ as his Son ; 
Jesus, the Son, of whom the Father speaks ; and the Holy 
Spirit, who in a bodily form descends upon Christ. In 
Luke iv, 18, we have the mention of Christ preaching; 
the Lord, who sent him ; and the Spirit of the Lord, who 
anointed him. John xvi, 13-15, the Father, who owned 
all things ; Christ, whom the Spirit of truth would glorify; 
and the Spirit of Truth, who would come to the disciples, 
and shew them things to come. Acts xx, 27, 28, God the 
Father, whose counsel Paul had declared; God (the Lord), 
Jesus, who had purchased the Church with his blood ; and 
the Holy Spirit, who had made the overseers of the Church. 
Gal. iv, 6, God the Father, who sent the Spirit ; Christy 
whose Spirit was sent ; and the Spirit, who was sent. (See 
also Rom. viii, 9; 1 Cor. xii, 3-6.) Eph. ii, 18-22, the 
Father, unto whom we have access; Christ, who procured 
the access for us; and the one Spirit, who guides us in the 
access. Eph. iv, 4-6, the Father, who is above all; Christ, 
one Lord, the author of our faith ; and one Spirit, who 
called us. 1 Peter i, 2, the Father, who foreknew us; 
Jesus Christ, who sprinkled us with his blood ; and the Spirit, 
who sanctified us." 

DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE TRINITY IN UNITY. 

Numbers vi, 23-26 : " Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, 
saying, On this wise shall ye bless the children of Israel, saying 
unto them, The Lord bless thee and keep thee : the Lord make 
his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee : the Lord 
lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace." 

An analysis of this text presents the following items : 
1. "Ye shall bless the children of Israel," (T9) "Ye 
shall invoke the Divine favor upon them." 2. The words 
1 ' bless" (verse 24), "make his face shine upon thee" 
(verse 25), "lift his countenance upon thee" (verse 26), 
convey nearly the same meaning; namely, "show love and 
favor." 3. "Keep thee" ("!£#, Sept. <po\&G<su)), watch, 



24 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

guard, keep (verse 24). 4. " Be gracious unto thee" 
Cpn, hhanan, Ueiaj in the Sept.), " be merciful unto thee" 
(verse 25). 5. "Give thee peace," — such peace as results 
from a sense of safety and rest, and is accompanied with 
health and comfort. 

The three members of this benediction are not simply 
three repetitions of the same nouns and verbs, but form 
three invocations of the same blessing in somewhat differ- 
ent terms. They also contain the invocation of three dis- 
tinct and different blessings ; that is, a distinct blessing is 
invoked in each member of the benediction. If there is 
but one person in the unity of the Godhead, it would be 
difficult to relieve the text of the appearance of tautology ; 
but there being three persons in the Godhead, and three 
different blessings invoked, the exegesis of the text be- 
comes natural and easy. Verse 23 is introductory, calling 
attention to the manner of the benediction. Verse 24 
may be paraphrased thus: "The Lord shew thee love 
and favor, guard and preserve thee." This would seem 
naturally to apply to the Father, and is in harmony with 
the following texts: "No man is able to pluck them out 
of my Father's hand;" " Holy Father, keep through thine 
own name those whom thou hast given me ;" " That thou 
should est keep them from the evil;" "Who are kept by 
the power of God." (John x, 29; xvii, 11, 15; 1 Peter 
i, 5.) Verse 25 might be paraphrased thus: " The Lord 
shew thee love and favor, and shew mercy unto thee." 
This would seem to refer to Christ, and is in harmony with 
the fact that mercy comes to us through Christ. It is in 
perfect harmony, so far, with the apostolic benedictions ; 
thus, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you." 
(1 Cor. xvi, 23 ; 2 Cor. xiii, 14 ; Gal. vi, 18 ; Phil, iv, 
23; 1 Thess. v, 28; 2 Thess. iii, 18; Philemon 25.) 
Verse 26 might be paraphrased thus: "The Lord shew 
thee love and favor, and give thee peace" — such peace as 
flows from a sense of safety and rest, and brings with it 



THE TRINITY IN UNITY. 25 

health and comfort. This harmonizes with what is said of 
the Holy Spirit. "In the comfort of the Holy Spirit." 
(Acts ix, 31.) "The Spirit of adoption whereby we cry 
Abba Father. " "Now the God of hope fill you with all 
joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, 
through the power of the Holy Spirit." " With joy of the 
Holy Spirit." (Rom. viii, 15 ; xv, 13 ; xiv, 17 ; Gal. v, 
22 ; 1. Thess. i, 6.) This benediction seems to be an invo- 
cation of the blessings of the Triune God, in which they 
prayed for the favor and protection of the Father, the 
favor and mercy of the Son, and the favor and peace of 
the Holy Spirit. 

Isaiah vi, 1-10. — " In the year that King Uzziah died I saw 
also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his 
train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim : each 
one had six wings ; with twain he covered his face, and with 
twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one 
cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of 
hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts 
of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the 
house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me ! for I am 
undone ! because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the 
midst of a people of unclean lips ; for mine eyes have seen the 
King, the Lord of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphim 
unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken 
with the tongs from off the altar ; and he laid it upon my 
mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips ; and thine 
iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. Also I heard the 
voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go 
for us ? Then said I, Here am I ; send me. And he said, Go, 
and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not ; and 
see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people 
fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they 
see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand 
with their heart, and convert, and be healed." 

The Divine Being spoken of in this passage is called 
"Lord" (Adonai), "the King," and "the Lord of 
hosts" (Jehovah Sabaoth). The seraphim, in a profound 

3 



26 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

act of religious worship, attributed to him infinite holi- 
ness and omnipresent glory, thus ascribing to him the at- 
tributes of supreme Divinity, and also rendering to him 
supreme worship. While the singular pronouns " I," 
"he," " his," are used to represent this Being, it is also true 
that this Divine Being uses the plural pronoun "us" when 
speaking of self (ver. 8) ; thus indicating a plurality of 
persons in the Divinity. An examination of this passage 
will show that this plurality comprises three distinct per- 
sons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It will 
not be denied that this manifestation of the Divine Being 
was a manifestation of God the Father. It was also a 
manifestation of the Son. The evangelist says: "These 
things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." 
(1 John xii, 42.) Christ was one of the three whom the 
seraphim worshiped as " the Lord of hosts." 

Some Unitarian writers endeavor to escape the force of 
this testimony of John by saying that Isaiah here 
"foresaw" the glory of Christ. But this will not stand 
examination. John says that Esaias "saw his glory" 
(zlda). If John had wished to say that Isaiah foresaw 
Christ's glory, then the words -popX£-u) and izpoopau) were 
at hand to designate such a thought ; but John does not 
use them ; and I do not know of any passage in which eldco is 
used to designate the act of foreseeing. John does not speak 
of what the prophet foresaw, but of what he saw at that 
time as actually present before him. The prophet's vision 
of the Lord Jesus receiving worship of the seraphim was 
not a prevision of something that would take place in the 
future; but it was an ocular manifestation of the wor- 
ship that Christ was then receiving. It was not Christ 
incarnate, but Christ in his pre-existent state, as the Jeho- 
vah of the Old Testament, that Isaiah saw. "Some have 
affirmed that the pronouns in the passage of John refer to 
the Almighty Father, because ' the Lord/ in verse 38, is 
the nearest antecedent. But this proceeds upon a misap- 



THE TRINITY IN UNITY. 27 

prehension. The appropriate use of the pronoun in ques- 
tion (o&roc) is to mark the person or thing which is the 
principal subject of discourse. If it were possible for any 
one to read the whole preceding connection, and have 
any doubt that Christ is that subject, his doubt could not 
but be dissipated by the next sentence: i Yet many even 
of the rulers believed on him.'" (J. P. Smith's "Mes- 
siah," Vol. I, p. 379.) 

I subjoin Alford's note on the text: "The evangelist 
is giving his judgment, having (Luke xxiv, 45) had his 
understanding opened to understand the Scriptures — that 
tlie passage in Isaiah is spoken of Christ. And, indeed, 
strictly considered, the glory which Isaiah saw could only 
be that of the Son, who is the dxauyaff/j.a rrj<; dozys of the 
Father, whom no eye hath seen." 

The examination of this passage so far has resulted in 
the identification of two of the persons comprehended in 
the supreme Godhead, as it manifested itself to Isaiah in 
the temple ; namely, the Father, and Jesus Christ the 
Son. There was, and is, a third person in the. Godhead, 
that revealed itself to Isaiah ; namely, the Holy Spirit. 
Paul quotes the passage from Isaiah, and attributes it to 
the Holy Spirit: "Well spa^e the Holy Ghost by Esaias, 
the prophet, unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people 
and say, Hearing, ye shall hear," etc. (Acts xxviii, 25, 
26.) Isaiah saw the Lord of hosts receiving supreme 
worship from the seraphim ; at the same time and place 
he heard the Supreme Being speak certain words. These 
words St. Paul quotes, and declares that the Holy Spirit 
spoke them ; thus making it manifest that the Holy Spirit 
is one of the persons comprehended in the Godhead. It 
has been objected that "Holy Spirit" in the text may 
denote the Father as the fountain of Deity. In answer to 
this, let it be noted that, in the text under consonsidera- 
tion, the Holy Spirit is designated by rbv Iliufxa to aytov. 
Now, while it may be true that in the New Testament, 



28 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

nvzu/ma, to Ilv£u/j.a y Ilveo/ia aytov, and to aytov IJveu/jLa some- 
times designate the Father, yet the full title to IJved/j.a to 
aywv occurs iu the following places: Matt, xii, 32; Mark 
iii, 29; xii, 36; xiii, 11; Luke ii, 26; iii, 22; John xiv, 
26; Acts i, 16; v, 3, 32; vii, 51; x, 44, 47; xi, 15; xiii, 
2; xv, 8; xix, 6; xx, 23, 28; xxi, 11; xxviii, 25; Eph. 
i, 13; iv, 30; 1 Thess. iv, 8; Heb. iii, 7 ; ix, 8 ; x, 15 ; 
and in no one of these instances does it designate either the 
Father or Christ, but always designates the Holy Spirit. 
Let all the circumstances of Isaiah's vision be consid- 
ered; the One Jehovah of hosts to whom the religious 
worship of the seraphim was addressed; the plural pro- 
noun used by this One Jehovah — "us;" the declaration 
of the apostle that in this vision Isaiah saw the glory of 
Christ; the assertion of St. Paul that the Divine Being 
who spoke on that occasion was the Holy Spirit ; and they 
place it beyond all reasonable doubt that the Jehovah of 
hosts, whom Isaiah saw, was the Triune God, existing as 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one Godhead. 

Matthew xxviii, 19 : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost." 

" Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, bap- 
tizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost." (Rev. Version.) 

Christian baptism is an act of religious worship, in 
which the person receiving it is obligated to believe in, 
worship, and serve the only true God. The apostles of 
Christ had been taught that there was but one God; and 
yet they were commanded to baptize in the name of three 
distinct persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 
Mark the fact: Christ did not say "the names," but "the 
name." The Sacred Trinity is not a congregation of three 
separate Gods, but a unity of three distinct persons in one 
Godhead. Unitarian writers speak of " the name" as be- 
ing pleonastic. But this is not so evident ; if ovotia had 



THE TRINITY IN UNITY. 29 

been left out of the commission, or if 6v6fiara had been 
substituted in its place, then the text might have been re- 
garded as teaching the plurality of Gods; but with ovo/ia 
in the text, it harmonizes with the doctrine of the unity 
of God, while it reveals three persons as co-existing in 
that unity. 

In the form of administering baptism, this — one of the 
fundamental doctrines of the gospel — the doctrine of the 
Holy Trinity is unequivocally taught. u No superiority or 
difference in rank is mentioned as appertaining to either 
of the Sacred Three ; but all of them are spoken of in 
the same terms. It is therefore impossible to suppose that, 
while the Father is self-existent, eternal, and omnipotent, " 
the Sou should be a mere creature, subject to all of the lim- 
itations of a finite being; "or, that the Holy Spirit should 
be a mere energy or operation, without any personal ex- 
istence. The very form, indeed, running in the name — not 
names — of the Three, may insinuate that the authority of 
all three is the same, their power equal, their persons un- 
divided, and their glory one." (Trollope's Analecta Theo- 
logica.) 

"It has been objected that baptism is, in the book of 
Acts, frequently mentioned as baptism ' in the name of the 
Lord Jesus' simply, and from hence it might be inferred 
that the formula in the Gospel of St. Matthew was not in 
use. If this were so, it would conclude against the use of 
the words of our Lord as the standing form of baptism, 
but would prove nothing against the significancy of bap- 
tism in whatever form it might be administered. For as 
this passage in St. Matthew was the original commission 
under which, alone, the apostles had authority to baptize 
at all, the import of the rite is marked out in it; and 
whatever words they used in baptism, they were found to 
explain the import of the rite, as laid down by their Mas- 
ter, to all disciples so received. But from the passages 
adduced from the Acts, the inference that the form of 



30 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 

baptism given in Matthew was not rigorously followed by 
the apostles does not follow, because the earliest Christian 
writers inform us that this solemn form of expression was 
uniformly employed from the beginning of the Christian 
Church. It is true, indeed, that the apostle Peter said to 
those who were converted on the day of Pentecost, Acts 
ii, 38, ' Repent, and be baptized, every one of you in the 
name of Jesus Christ;' and that, in different places of the 
book of Acts, it is said that persons were baptized in the 
name of the Lord Jesus; but there is internal evidence 
from the New Testament itself that, when the historian 
says that the persons were baptized in the name of. the 
Lord Jesus, he means that they were baptized according 
to the form prescribed by Jesus. Thus the question put, 
Acts xix, 3, * Unto what then were ye baptized?' shows 
that he did not suppose it possible for any person who ad- 
ministered Christian baptism to omit the mention of the 
Holy Spirit; and even after the question, the historian, 
when he informs us that the disciples were baptized, is not 
solicitous to repeat the whole form, but says in his usual 
manner, Acts xix, 5 : ' When they heard this, they were 
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.' There is an- 
other question put by the apostle Paul, which shows us in 
what light he viewed the form of baptism, 1 Cor. i, 13 : 
* Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?' Here the ques- 
tion implies that he considered the form of baptism as so 
sacred that the introducing the name of a teacher into it 
was the same thing as introducing a new master into the 
kingdom of Christ." (Watson.) 

With regard to 1 Cor. x, 2, '"Were all baptized unto 
Moses," it may be said : 1. The name of Moses is not 
associated with that of God in the baptism of Israel. 
2. The Israelites never understood their baptism as obli- 
gating them to worship Moses as their God; but in all 
time, since the giving of the Commission, the great ma- 
jority of Christians have understood their baptism as obli- 



THE TRINITY IN UNITY. 31 

gating them to worship both the Son and the Holy Spirit, 
as well as the Father. 3. The Israelites were not com- 
manded to perform subsequent baptisms in the name of 
Moses; but the disciples of Christ are obligated to baptize 
in the name of the Father, and of the Sou, and of the 
Holy Spirit, through all coming time; and thus this fully 
proves the co-equality of each of the Sacred Three, for we 
must either believe in and worship their co-equal supreme 
Divinity as the Trinity in Unity, or renounce our baptism 
in their name. 

2 Corinthians xiii, 14 : " The grace of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
Spirit, be with you all. Amen." 

This apostolic benediction has been recognized by the 
Christian world as an act of worship rendered to Jesus 
Christ and to the Holy Spirit in union with the Father. 
The fact that this worship is paid to Christ and to the 
Holy Spirit conjointly with the Father, is full proof that 
Christ and the Holy Spirit are persons of supreme Di- 
vinity. Unitarians object that "the text does not say 
1 communion with the Holy Spirit/ as though the Spirit 
were a person ; but ' communion of the Holy Spirit/ as 
though the Spirit were something to be received." The 
fallacy of this mode of reasoning is seen when we remem- 
ber that the same construction is used in 1 Cor. i. 9, "The 
fellowship of his Son ;" and also in 1 John i, 3, 6: " Our 
fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus 
Christ;" "If we say that we have fellowship with him," 
etc. The word xowwvta, rendered "communion" in the 
benediction, is the same word that is rendered " fellow- 
ship" in the texts just quoted. Will Unitarians question 
the personality of Christ and of the Father ? 

It is objected that Christ can not, in the benediction, be 
worshiped as God, for in the benediction that title is given 
specifically to the Father. There might possibly be some 
force in this objection, if "God" was the only name or 



32 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

title by which the Divine Being was known ; but as this 
is not the case, the objection dwindles into nothingness. 
The truth that the Father is God, is not only no proof 
that the Son is not God, but it is unanswerable proof that 
he is God. For as the Father is God, the Son, who must 
be of the same nature and essence with the Father, must 
be God also. 

Unitarians deny that this benediction is a prayer, and 
assert that "it is simply the expression of an affectionate, 
devout, and earnest wish." The incorrectness of this is 
shown by the substance matter of the benediction: "The 
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ ;" that is, the pardoning 
mercy of the Lord the anointed Savior ; " and the love of 
God," the love of the Father, which caused our creation, 
our preservation, and our redemption; " and the com- 
munion of the Holy Spirit," the source of all spiritual 
illumination and life; " be with you all." If this is not a 
prayer, it will be difficult to tell what a prayer is. It is a 
prayer. It is a prayer addressed to the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and to the Father, and to the Holy Spirit, thus proving 
each of them to be supremely divine. Our Savior quoted an 
immutable law : " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and 
him only shalt thou serve." (Matt, iv, 10.) Yet here an 
inspired apostle closes his epistle with an act of religious 
worship rendered to Christ and to the Father and to the 
Holy Spirit. It follows from this that these three per- 
sons must constitute one God, and that the apostolic ben- 
ediction is the benediction implored of the Triune God. 

Dr. Whedon has well said of this benediction, that 
"like the baptismal sentence of our Lord, it implanted 
the impress of the Holy Trinity on the mind of the early 
Church. It proceeds in the order of Christian life. First, 
grace from Christ, bringing justification; second, love from 
God as to an adopted child ; then the witness and the 
abiding impartation of the Spirit. Such is the blessed 
climax of our gospel inheritance." 



SUPREME DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 33 

It has now been shown that there is but one God. 
The Bible teaches this great truth with such a plainness, 
force, and frequency, as to place it beyond all doubt. It 
has also been shown that the use of plural pronouns by- 
God indicates a plurality of persons in the Godhead. 
It has also been shown that the Bible limits this plurality 
of persons in the Godhead to three distinct persons, the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the Jewish ben- 
ediction (Numbers vi, 23-26) ; in the vision of Isaiah 
(Isaiah vi, 1-10); in the apostolic commission (Matthew 
xxviii, 19) ; in the apostolic benediction (2 Cor. xiii, 14), — 
these three persons have been found joined in the unity of 
the Godhead, receiving the supreme worship of men and 
of seraphim. The foregoing evidence is amply sufficient 
to sustain the doctrine of the Sacred Trinity ; neverthe- 
less, it is but a small part of the evidence on which that 
doctrine rests. When we fasten our minds on the Bible 
doctrine of the unity of God, and associate with this doc- 
trine the fact that the Bible presents us with three distinct 
persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and 
that it invests each and all of these persons with the attri- 
butes and titles, ascribes to them the actions, and pays to 
them the worship that is due only to supreme Divinity, it 
proves the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity beyond the pos- 
sibility of successful contradiction. The supreme Divinity 
of the Father w T ill not be questioned by any believer in 
the existence of the Supreme Being. The direct evidence 
of the supreme Divinity of Christ, and of the personality 
and Deity of the Holy Spirit, will now be adduced. 

THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 

In examining the doctrine of the supreme Divinity of 
Christ, I will first call attention to the evidence of his pre- 
existence. 

Two distinct, separate truths are involved in the doc- 
trine of the pre-existence of Christ. 1. That Christ existed 



34 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

as a man, having a body and a human soul. 2. That be- 
fore he existed as a man — that is, before his body and soul 
existed — he pre-existed as a Divine Being. The existence 
of Christ's body and human soul will be discussed when 
we speak of the humanity of Christ. The doctrine of the 
pre-existence of Christ must not be confounded with the 
notion of the pre-existence of Christ's human soul; for the 
essential point in the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ 
is that he had an existence as a liviug being before his 
human soul began to exist. 

1 1 The writers in favor of the pre-existence of Christ's 
human soul recommend their opinion by these arguments : 

1. Christ is represented as his Father's messenger, or 
angel, being distinct from his Father, sent by his Father, 
long before his incarnation, to perform actions which seem 
to be too low for the dignity of pure Godhead. The ap- 
pearances of Christ to the patriarchs are described like the 
appearance of an angel, or man, really distinct from God, 
yet one in whom God, or Jehovah, had a peculiar dwell- 
ing, or with whom the divine nature had a personal union. 

2. Christ, when he came into the world, is said, in several 
passages of Scripture, to have divested himself of some 
glory which he had before his incarnation. Now, if there 
had existed before this time nothing but his divine nature, 
this divine nature, it is argued, could not have properly 
divested itself of any glory. (John xvii, 4, 5; 2 Cor. 
viii, 9.) It can not be said of God that he became poor; 
he is infinitely self-sufficient ; he is necessarily and eter- 
nally rich in perfections and glories. Nor can it be said 
of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he were never in a 
richer state before than while he was on earth. 3. It 
seems needful, say those who embrace this opinion, that 
the soul of Jesus Christ should pre-exist, that it might 
have an opportunity to give its previous actual consent to 
the great and painful undertaking of making atonement 
for man's sins. It was the human soul of Christ that en- 



SUPREME DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 35 

dured the weakness and pain of his infant state, all the la- 
bors and fatigues of life, the reproaches of men, and the 
sufferings of death. The divine nature is incapable of suf- 
fering. The covenant of redemption between the Father 
and the Son is therefore represented as being made before 
the foundation of the world. To suppose that simple Deity, 
or the Divine Essence, which is the same in all the three 
personalities, should make a covenant with itself, is incon- 
sistent. Dr. Watts, moreover, supposes that the doctrine 
of the pre-existence of the soul of Christ explains dark 
and difficult Scriptures, and discovers mauy beauties and 
proprieties of expression in the Word of God, which on 
any other plan lie unobserved. For instance, in Col. i, 
15, etc., Christ is described as the image of the invisible 
God, the first-born of every creature. His being the image 
of the invisible God can not refer merely to his divine 
nature, for that is as invisible in the Son as in the Father; 
therefore it seems to refer to his pre-existent soul in union 
with the Godhead. Again, when man is said to be cre- 
ated in the image of God (Gen. i, 27), it may refer to the 
God-man, to Christ in his pre-existent state. God says: 
* Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' The 
word is redoubled, perhaps to intimate that Adam was 
made in the likeness of the human soul of Christ, as well 
as that he bore something of the image and resemblance 
of the divine nature." (McClintock & Strong, Vol. 
VIII, 503.) 

The doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ's human 
soul is open to several objections. These objections will 
be stated as they are found in McClintock and Strong's 
Cyclopedia, Vol. VIII, 503; and Hodge's Theology, 
Vol. II, 427: 

1. "If Jesus Christ had nothing in common like the 
rest of mankind except a body, how could this semi-con- 
formity make him a real man?" 

2. "The Bible, in teaching that the Son of God be- 



36 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

came man, thereby teaches that he assumed a true body 
and a rational soul. For neither a soul without body, 
nor a body without a soul, is a man in the Scriptural sense 
of the term. It was the Logos which became man, and 
not a God-man that assumed a material body." 

3. " This notion is contrary to the Scripture. St. Paul 
says : ' In all things it behooved him to be made like unto 
his brethren' (Heb. ii, 17) — he partook of all our infirm- 
ities except sin. St. Luke says : ' He increased in stature 
and wisdom.' (Luke ii, 52.)" 

4. " This notion raises him beyond the reach of human 
sympathies. He is, as a man, farther from us than the 
angel Gabriel." We want one to whom we can draw near 
in faith and love, because he has a human soul like our 
own, and can "be touched with the feeling of our infirm- 
ities." (Heb. iv, 15.) 

5. "This opinion, by ascribing the dignity of the work 
of redemption to this sublime human soul, detracts from 
the Deity of Christ, and renders the last as passive as the 
first is active." 

6. "Upon the whole, this scheme, adopted to relieve 
the difficulties which must always surround mysteries so 
great, only creates new ones. This is the usual fate of 
similar speculations, and shows the wisdom of resting in 
the plain interpretation of the Word of God." 

Having rejected the notion of the pre-existence of 
Christ's human soul, let us now examine the evidence 
found in the Scriptures of the pre-existence of Christ. 

The proof that Christ existed before he was born of 
the virgin Mary is a complete refutation of Socinianism. 
The point to be proven is that Christ existed as a conscious, 
intelligent Being before he was born in Bethlehem. In 
proof of this doctrine, the following texts of Scripture and 
arguments are adduced: 

John vi, 62 : " And if ye shall see the Son of man ascend 
up where he was before. " 



SUPREME DIVIXITY OF CHRIST. 37 

III verse 38 of this chapter, Jesus claims to have come 
down from heaven; he said: " For I came down from 
heaven." The Jews understood him as claiming a literal 
descent from a literal heaven. They deemed it incredible 
that a man whose mother and reputed father dwelt in 
their midst, could possibly have descended from heaven ; 
hence they said: ''Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, 
whose father and mother we know ? How is it then that 
he saith, I came down from heaven ?" Now, if they mis- 
understood Christ, if he did not mean to teach that he 
had lived in heaven before he came to earth, then he 
ought to have corrected their misunderstanding by ex- 
plaining his meaning. He was certainly obligated to do 
this, because the simple, natural meaning of his words 
would be that he had lived in heaven before he came to 
earth. But Christ does not intimate that they misunder- 
stood him ; but, on the contrary, he forbids them mur- 
muring at his words — verse 43. After proceeding with 
his discourse, he notices some of his disciples murmuring 
at it. He remonstrates with them by asking them, if they 
w r ere offended at his words, what they would say if they 
were to see him ascend to the same heaven from whence 
he came? If we place any value on Christ's words, we 
can not escape the conviction that he claimed to have lived 
in heaven before he came to earth. 

For a similar proof of the pre-existence of our Lord, 
see John xvi, 28. 

John viii, 56-58: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my 
day ; and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto 
him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abra- 
ham? Jesus said unto them, Verily > verily, I say unto you, 
Before Abraham was, I am." 

In this text note the following items: 1. Our Lord's 
assertion that Abraham " rejoiced to see" his "day." 
2. The Jews understood him to say that he and Abraham 
had seen each other. 3. They not only so understood him, 



38 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

but in their answer they reminded him that he was "not 
yet fifty years old ;" and then ask him the direct question, 
" Hast thou seen Abraham?" 4. Christ does not intimate 
that they misunderstood him; but, on the contrary, he 
claims an existence before Abraham was — "Before Abra- 
ham was, I am." 

I subjoin the following notes as worthy of serious 
attention : 

"Mark the distinction between Ehat and ybeeGat, . . . 
* Before Abraham was, I am/ npiv "Aftpad/i ytviaSat, £y(b 
el/jLi — ' Before Abraham was born, I am.' The becoming 
only can be rightly predicated of the patriarch , the being 
is reserved for the Eternal Son alone." (J. B. Light- 
foot, D. D.) 

" Was points only to a human constitution; I am to a 
divine substance ; and therefore the original hath a yv;l<j8ai 
for Abraham, and an elpa for Christ." (Sydenham.) 

John xvii, 5, 24: "And now, Father, glorify thou me 
with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee be- 
fore the world was. . . . For thou lovedst me before the 
foundation of the world." 

The prayer, from which the foregoing words are taken, 
is not characterized by any highly-wrought figurative or 
parabolical language. On the contrary, it is remarkable 
for its severe simplicity of style. Attention is called to 
the following points: 1. Christ asks the Father to glorify 
him. 2. He asks for the glory which he once had pos- 
sessed in union with the Father. 3. He had possessed 
this glory before the world was. 4. He strengthens his 
prayer with the statement that the Father had loved him 
before the foundation of the world. Thus, in the clearest 
possible manner, he sets forth the truth of his pre-exist- 
ence ; he had lived with the Father * ' before the foundation 
of the world;" he had shared the Father's glory "before 
the foundation of the world;" and he had been loved by 
the Father "before the foundation of the world." 



THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 39 

2 Corinthians viii, 9: " For ye know the grace of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he 
became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." 

Two statements are made in this text, which, taken 
together, prove the pre-existence of Christ: 1. Our Lord 
Jesus Christ was rich; 2. He became poor. According to 
the text, he was rich before he became poor. But all of 
our Lord's earthly life was a life of poverty ; hence his 
life of riches must have been before his earthly life. It 
must have been a pre-existent life. Unitarians contend 
that -Tcuyjuco does not mean to "become poor," but to 
"be poor," and that the text means that "Christ was rich, 
and, at the same time, that he lived in poverty." It is 
true that in classic Greek tztw/juid means to "be poor, 
beg, live by begging;" yet such is not its Biblical usage. 
Uzaj/joaj does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, 
and only six times in the Septuagint. In every one of 
these instances it means "to become poor." Notice these 
passages as they are given by Trommius: "Israel was 
greatly impoverished" (Judges vi, 6); that is, "was made 
very poor." "Have ye called us to take that we have?" 
literally "to make us poor." (Judges xiv, 15.) "The 
rich have become poor;" "We have become very poor." 
(Psalm xxxiii, 10; lxxix, 10.) "Every drunkard and 
whoremonger shall become poor." (Prov. xxiii, 21.) 
"Fear not, my son, that we are made poor." (Tobit iv, 
21.) These quotations furnish sufficient evidence of the 
incorrectness of the Unitarian interpretation. 

Barnes's note on this text is very good: "The riches 
of the Redeemer, here referred to, stand opposed to that 
poverty which he assumed and manifested when he dwelt 
among men. It implies (1) His pre-existence; for he 
became poor. He had been rich; yet not in this world. 
He did not lay aside wealth in this world after he had 
possessed it; for he had none. He was not first rich and 
then poor on earth ; for he had no earthly wealth. The 



40 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Socinian interpretation is, that he was rich in power and 
in the Holy Ghost ; but it was not true that he laid these 
aside, and that he became poor in respect to either of 
them. He had power, even in his poverty, to still the 
waves and to raise the dead, and he was always full of 
the Holy Ghost. But he was poor. His family was poor, 
his parents were poor, and he was himself poor all his life. 
This, then, must refer to a state of antecedent riches be- 
fore his assumption of human nature." 

Thayer's Lexicon of the Greek Testament, sub voce 
7zlovaioq, says: " Although, as the acrapy.oq loyoq, he for- 
merly abounded in the riches of a heavenly condition, by 
assuming human nature he entered into a state of [earthly] 
poverty. (2 Cor. viii, 9)." 

The foregoing survey of the evidence of our Lord's pre- 
existence can not be closed more appropriately than by repro- 
ducing the words of Noah Worcester (Unitarian). We can 
not indorse Dr. Worcester's views of our Lord's nature ; but 
the following statement of his concerning our Lord's pre-exist- 
ence meets with our hearty indorsement: "It is amazing 
that it should be denied by any man who professes a re- 
spect for the oracles of God." (Bible News, p. 100.) 

CHRIST THE JEHOVAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

The next step in proving the supreme Divinity of 
Christ is to prove that he was the Jehovah of the Old Tes- 
tament. 

The proof of this truth naturally divides itself into the 
proof of three subordinate propositions : 1. The Being 
who is mentioned in the Old Testament under the titles 
of "The Angel of the Lord," "The Angel of God," 
"Lord," and "God," is one and the same Being, and is 
the Supreme God. 2. This Being is not God the Father, 
although occasional manifestations of the Father are ad- 
mitted to have taken place. 3. That this Being was our 
Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-existent state. 



CHRIST AS JEHO VAH. 41 

I. The Jehovah-Angel the Supreme God. 

In proof that "The Angel of the Lord," " The Angel 
of God," 'Lord," and "God," is the supreme God, the 
following texts and arguments are submitted : 

Genesis xvi, 7, 10, 11, 13: " And the Angel of the Lor$ 
found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness. . . . 
And the Angel of the Lord said unto her, I w r ill multiply thy 
seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 
And the Angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with 
child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; 
because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. . . . And she 
called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God 
6eest me : for she said, Have I also here looked after him that 
seeth me?" 

In this text "The Angel of the Lord" is called both 
11 Lord " (Jehovah) and " God." It is cheerfully admitted 
that the title " Lord" (Jehovah) sometimes designates God 
the Father. It seems to be applied to him in verse 11, 
"because the Lord hath heard." It is sometimes applied 
to another person. In verse 13 it is applied to the angel : 
"And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto 
her." In this text "The Angel of the Lord" is called 
both "Lord" and "God." This Divine Person claims 
such foreknowledge as God only can have. He fore- 
told that Hagar's expected child would be "a son;" that 
his name would be "Ishmael;" that he would be "a 
wild man," and would "dwell in the presence of all his 
brethren." Such prescience belongs to God only. This 
Jehovah-Angel also claimed omnipotence. He promised to 
make Hagar's posterity a numberless multitude — a promise 
which nothing but Omnipotence could fulfill. This Je- 
hovah-Augel wears the titles and exercises the attributes of 
Supreme Deity. Hengstenberg, in his "Christology," Vol. 
I, p. 117, renders the words "Have I also here looked 
after him that seeth me?" " Do I still see after my see- 
ing?" That is, "Do I still live after seeing God?" He 

4 



42 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

speaks of verse 14 thus : " They called the well ' Well of 
the living sight;' i. e., where a person had a sight of God 
and remained alive." He follows this translation with the 
following: " Hagar must have been convinced that she 
had seen God without the mediation of a created angel; 
for otherwise she could not have wondered that her life 
was preserved. Man, entangled by the visible world, is 
terrified when he comes in contact with the invisible world, 
even with angels; but this terrorizes to fear of death only 
when man comes into contact with the Lord himself." 

In Gen. xxxii, 30 — a passage which bears the clos- 
est resemblance to the one now under review, and from 
which it receives its explanation — it is said : * ' And Jacob 
called the name of the place Peniel, for I have seen God 
face to face, and my life has been preserved." In Ex. 
xx, 19, the children of Israel said to Moses, " Speak thou 
with us, and we will hear ; and let not God speak with us, 
lest we die;" compared with Deut. v, 25: "Now, there- 
fore, why should we die? for this great fire will consume 
us : if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, 
then we shall die." (Compare also Deut. xviii, 16.) 
And it is Jehovah who, in Ex. xxxiii, 20, says: "There 
shall no man see me and live." Israel's Lord and God is, 
in the absolute energy of his nature, a "consuming fire." 
(Deut. iv, 24. Compare Deut. ix, 3; Heb. xii, 29.) 
"AVho among us would dwell with everlasting burnings?" 
(Isa. xxxiii, 14.) It is not the reflected light, even in the 
most exalted creatures, nor the sight of the saints, of 
whom it is said, "Behold, he puts no trust in his serv- 
ants, and his angels he chargeth with folly ;" but the sight 
of the Thrice Holy One, which makes Isaiah exclaim : 
" Woe is me, for I am undone ; for I am a man of unclean 
lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips !' 
Murphy comments thus : " Have I continued to live and see 
the sun after having seen God ? — Beer-lahai-roi, the well 
of vision (of God) to the living. To see God and live 



CHRIST AS JEHOVAH. 43 

was an issue contrary to expectation. " Gesenius and 
Kurtz make similar comments. The Bible Commentary 
refers us to the notes of chapter xii, 7. I subjoin these 
notes: "And the Lord appeared unto Abram. This is 
the first mention of a distinct appearance of the Lord to 
man. His voice is heard by Adam, and he is said to 
have spoken to Noah and to Abram ; but here is a visible 
manifestation. The following questions naturally arise : 

1. Was this a direct vision of Jehovah in bodily shape? 

2. Was it an impression produced in the mind of the seer, 
but not a true vision of God? 3. Was it an angel 
personating God? 4. Was it a manifestation of the Son of 
God, a Theophania, in some measure anticipating the 
incarnation? (1) The first question seems answered by 
St. John (John i, 18): 'No man hath seen God [the 
Father] at any time.' (2) The second, to a certain ex- 
tent, follows the first. Whether there was a manifesta- 
tion of an objective reality, or merely an impression on 
the senses, we can not possibly judge; but the vision, 
whether seen in sleep or waking, can not have been a 
vision of God the Father. (3) The third question has 
been answered by many in the affirmative, it being con- 
cluded that 'the angel of the Lord/ a created angel, was 
always the means of communication between God and 
man in the Old Testament. The great supporter of this 
opinion in early times was St. Augustine (De Trim, III, 
c. xi; Tom. VIII, pp. 805-810), the chief arguments in its 
favor being the statements of the New Testament that the 
law was given ' by disposition of angels/ ' spoken by 
angels/ etc. (Acts vii, 53 ; Gal. iii, 19 ; Heb. ii, 22.) It 
is further argued by the supporters of this view, that the 
angel of the Lord is, in some passages in the Old Testa- 
ment, and always in the New Testament, clearly a created 
angel (e. g. Zech. i, 11, 12, etc. ; Luke i, 11 ; Acts xii, 
23) ; and that therefore it is not to be supposed that any 
of these manifestations of the Angel of God or Angel of 



44 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 

the Lord, which seem so markedly divine, should have 
been anything more than the appearance of a created 
angel personating the Most High. (4) The affirmative of 
the fourth opinion was held by the great majority of the 
Fathers from the very first. (See, for instance, Justin, 
Dial, 280-284; Tertull. adv. Prax., c. xvi; Athanasius, 
cont. Arian., IV, pp. 464, 465, Ed. Col. ; Basil, adv. 
Eunom., ii, 18; Tlreodoret, Qu. V. in Exod.) The 
teaching of the Fathers on this head is investigated by 
Bishop Bull. (F. N. D., IV, iii.) In like manner the an- 
cient Jews had referred the manifestation of God in visi- 
ble form to the Shekinah, the Metatron, or the Memra de 
Jah — apparently an emanation from God, having a sem- 
blance of diversity, yet really one with him, coming forth 
to reveal him, but not truly distinctive from him. The 
fact that the name ' Angel of the Lord ' is sometimes used 
of a created angel, is not proof enough that it may not 
also be used of Him who is called ' the Angel of mighty 
counsel* (^.sydXr^ (louX?^ 'Jy^/^, Isa. ix, 6, Sept. Trans.), 
and 'the Angel of the Covenant' (Mai. iii, 1), and the 
apparent identification of the Angel of God with God 
himself in very many passages (e. g. Gen. xxxii, 24, comp. 
vv. 28, 30; Hosea xii, 3, 4; Gen. xvi, 10, 13; xlviii, 
15, 16; Josh, v, 14; vi, 2; Judg. ii, 1; xiii, 22; Isa. 
vi, 1 ; cf. John xii, 41 ; Isa. lxiii, 9), leads markedly to 
the conclusion that God spake to man by an Angel or 
Messenger, and yet that that Angel or Messenger was 
himself God. No man saw God at any time, but the only 
begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, de- 
clared him. He who was the Word of God — the Voice 
of God to his creatures — was yet in the beginning with 
God, and he was God." 

"Throughout the whole of the Old Testament there runs 
the distinction between the hidden God and the Revealer 
of God, himself equal with God, who most frequently is 
called ' the Messenger, [the Angel] of the Lord ' (Mala- 



CHRIST AS JEHO VAH. 45 

clii) — 'Jehovah/ one with him, and yet distinct from him. 
This Messenger of the Lord is the Guide of the patri- 
archs; the Caller of Moses; the Leader of the people 
through the wilderness ; the Champion of the Israelites in 
Canaan ; and also, yet further, the Guide and Ruler of 
the people of the Covenant, or — as he is called (Isaiah 
lxiii, 9) — the Angel of his Presence ; by Malachi, as the 
Messenger of the Covenant, greatly longed for by the peo- 
ple, whose return to his temple is promised. It nowhere 
occurs in the Old Testament that an angel speaks as if he 
were God — since Gabriel (Daniel x) and the angel who 
talks with Zechariah (i, 2) clearly distinguish themselves 
from Jehovah ; while this Angel of the Lord, in the pas- 
sage under consideration, and often elsewhere in the Old 
Testament, speaks as Jehovah, and his appearing is re- 
garded as that of the Most High God himself. Nay, God 
says expressly of this Angel: 'My name' — i. e., my re- 
vealed being — ' is in him.'" (Gerlach, quoted in Butlers 
Bible Work.) 

Genesis xxii, 11, 12, 15, 16: "And the Angel of the Lord 
called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham ; 
and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand 
upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him ; for now I 
know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy 
son, thine only son, from me. . . . And the Angel of the 
Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and 
said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou 
hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine 
only son." 

In Genesis xxii, we have the narrative of Abraham's 
offering of Isaac, and of the interposition of the Jehovah- 
Angel. In verses 11, 12, 15-18, we have the Angel's ad- 
dress to Abraham. In this address the Angel is called 
" the Angel of the Lord; and he calls himself "God" 
(verse 12), saying: "I know that thou fearest God, see- 
ing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from 
me." In verse 16, the Angel calls himself "Lord" (Je- 



46 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

hovah), and declares that he has sworn by himself. In 
Hebrews vi, 13, 14, Paul declares that "he sware by him- 
self," because " he could swear by no greater." This fully 
establishes the supreme Divinity of the Jehovah- Angel. 

Genesis xxxi, 11-13 : " And the Angel of God spake unto 
me in a dream, saying, Jacob ; and I said, Here am I. . . . 
I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and 
where thou vowedst a vow unto me ; now arise, get thee out 
of this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred." 

In this text "the Angel" is called "the Angel of 
Elohim" (verse 11). He claims to be "the God of 
Bethel ;" that is, the God who appeared to Jacob at Bethel, 
and to whom Jacob made a vow (verse 13 ; chapter xxviii, 
12-22). This "Angel" is not to be confounded with one 
of " the angels" mentioned as being present at Bethel, for 
he claims to be " the God of Bethel ;" and at Bethel, God 
is expressly distinguished from "the angels." "The 
angels" are mentioned as "ascending and descending" the 
ladder, while God is said to have "stood above it." At 
Bethel he is called "Lord;" he calls himself "Lord God" 
and " God." When Jacob comes to die, he calls this Be- 
ing both "God Almighty" and "the Angel." (Genesis 
xlviii, 3, 16.) The collation of these texts establishes the 
supreme Divinity of "the Angel" by showing that it was 
the same Being with Jehovah Elohim, the Lord God of 
Israel. 

Genesis xxxii, 24, 30: " And Jacob was left alone; and 
there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the 
day. . . . And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel : 
for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." 

The Being with whom Jacob wrestled is called "a 
man." In Hosea xh, 4, he is called "an angel." Jacob 
calls him "God" (verse 30). Hosea calls him "God" 
and "Lord of hosts" (chapter xii, 3, 5). This proof of 
the supreme Divinity of " the Angel" is short, plain, and 
unanswerable. 



CHRIST AS JEHOVAH 47 

Genesis xlviii, 15, 16: "And he blessed Joseph, and said, 
God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, 
the God which fed me all my life long nnto this day, the Angel 
which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads ; and let my 
name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abra- 
ham and Isaac ; and let them grow into a multitude in the 
midst of the earth." 

When Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph, he said : " The 
Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads." 
Here he offers this Angel religious worship — he prays to 
him. He attributes his redemption from " all evil" to 
him; and in the preceding verse calls him "God." It 
was only as God that Jacob could pray to him and attrib- 
ute his redemption to him. This Angel was our prayer- 
hearing Redeemer and God. 

" There is here a triple blessing : 

" 'The God before whom my fathers walked; 

14 ' The God which fed me like a shepherd all my life long ; 

14 * The Angel which redeemed [or redeemeth] me from 
all evil-' 

"It is impossible that the Angel, thus identified with 
God, can be a created angel. Jacob, no doubt, alludes to 
the Angel who wrestled with him, and whom he called 
God. (Chapter xxxii, 24-30.) The same as the Angel of 
the Covenant. (Malachi iii, 1.) Luther observes that the 
verb ' bless,' which thus refers to the God of his fathers, 
to the God who had been his shepherd, and to the Angel 
who redeemed him, is in the singular, not in the plural, 
showing that these three are but one God, and that the 
Angel is one with the fathers' God and the God who fed 
Jacob like a shepherd." (The Bible Commentary.) 

Exodus hi, 1-18 : " And the Angel of the Lord appeared 
unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush ; and he 
looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was 
not consumed. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to 
see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, 
Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. Moreover he said, I 



48 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of 
Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he 
was afraid to look upon God. And God said unto Moses, I AM 
THAT I AM ; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children 
of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said more- 
over unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, 
The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God 
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you : this 
is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all gen- 
erations." 

In the Scripture from which the foregoing texts are 
quoted, we have the narrative of the wonderful manifes- 
tation to Moses of a Divine Being in the burning bush. 
The supreme Divinity of this person is proven by the fol- 
lowing points : 1. He proclaims himself as the Being 
who hears prayer : i ' The cry of the children of Israel is 
come unto me." (Verse 9.) 2. He proclaims himself as 
the Being who rules over nations. He proposes to take 
Israel out of Egypt, and take them into Canaan: "I am 
come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyp- 
tians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good 
land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; 
unto the place of the Canaanites." (Verse 8.) 3. He for- 
bids Moses coming near him, and commands him to put 
off his shoes, because the place he stands on " is holy 
ground." 4. This Being is called " Lord" and "God." 
5. It is objected that this Divine Being was simply an 
angel, who spoke in the name of God. The authors of 
this objection cite us to the case of the angels who took 
Lot out of Sodom (Genesis xix, 12-22), and to the angel 
who spoke to John at Patmos (Rev. xxii, 7), as parallel 
cases; but these passages are too obscure and difficult of 
exegesis to allow them to set aside the testimony of the 
text in Exodus. Besides this, neither of these angels, 
either in Genesis or Revelation, makes any claim to the 
names and titles of God. On the other hand, the Being 
at the Burning Bush calls himself " the God of thy father, 



CHRIS T AS JEHO VA H. 49 

the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of 
Jacob;" he calls himself " the Lord God of your fathers;" 
he calls himself ''I Am," and says, "This is my name for- 
ever," "this is my memorial unto all generations." It has 
been objected that this "Angel of the Lord" was an am- 
bassador, and that ambassadors speak in the names of the 
rulers sending them. But this is not exactly true. Am- 
bassadors speak in the name of the rulers sending them, 
but they do not assume the rulers' names; but this Angel, 
as "the messenger of the great council," not only calls 
himself "God" and "I Am," but claims that this has al- 
ways been his name. What would we think of an ambas- 
sador from America to England who would say, "I am 
President Harrison; this is my name forever?" The ab- 
surdity of such a thing exposes the fallacy of the objection. 
'• The Angel of the Lord " at the Burning Bush exercises 
the governing authority — demands and receives from 
Moses the homage belonging to supreme Divinity. 

The Jehovah-Angel " explicitly identifies himself with 
Jehovah (Gen. xxii, 11-18; Heb. vi, 13-20), and Elohim 
(Gen. xxii, 12). 2. Those to whom he makes his pres- 
ence known recognize him as divine. (Gen. xvi, 13 ; xviii, 
23-33 ; xxviii, 16-22 ; Exod. iii, 6 ; Judges vi, 15, 20- 
23 ; xiii, 22.) 3. The Biblical writers constantly speak 
of him as divine, calling him Jehovah without the least 
reserve. (Chapter xvi, 13; xviii, 1 ; xxii, 16; Exod. iii. 2; 
Judges vi, 42.) 4. The doctrine here implied of a plu- 
rality of persons in the Godhead is in complete accord- 
ance with earlier foreshado wings (chapter i, 26; xi, 7), 
and later revelations of the same truth. 5. The organic 
unity of Scripture would be broken if it could be proved 
that the central point in the Old Testament revelation was 
a creature angel, while that of the new is the incarnation 
of the God-man." (Thomas Whitelaw, in Butler's Bible 
Work.) 

A Divine Being manifests himself to Moses and Israel 

5 



50 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 

on Mt. Sinai, attended with sublime physical phenomena. 
At his presence — 

Exodus xix, 16-25: " There were thunders and lightnings, 
and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trum- 
pet exceeding loud ; so that all the people that were in the camp 
trembled. . . . And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke, 
because the Lord descended upon it in fire : and the smoke 
thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole 
mount quaked greatly." 

This Divine Being is called by Moses both "God" 
(Elohim) and "Lord" (Jehovah); and in chapter xx he 
calls himself Lord God: " I am the Lord thy God." He 
forbids either man or beast to touch the mount on penalty 
of death. (Verses 12, 13.) "Now it was that the earth 
trembled at the presence of the Lord," the God of Jacob, 
and " the mountains skipped like rams" (Psa. cxiv, 4-7) ; 
that Sinai itself, though rough and rocky, "melted from 
before the Lord God of Israel" (Judges v, 5). (Benson.) 
If this was not a manifestation of Supreme Deity, we 
may despair of finding one in the world's history. But in 
Acts vii, 38, Stephen calls this Being " the Angel which 
spake to" Moses "in the Mt. Sinai," thus giving us the 
most conclusive proof that the Jehovah-Angel was the Su- 
preme Deity. 

Exodus, xxiii, 20, 21: " Behold, I send an Angel before 
thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place 
which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, 
provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: 
for my name is in him." 

The supreme Divinity of the Being here termed "an 
Angel " is sufficiently indicated by several items. 1. They 
are cautioned to " beware of him ;" that is, to reverence 
and stand in awe of him. 2. That he has the power either 
to punish or pardon. 3. That the "name" of God 
is in him; that is, the nature of God is in him. "This 
name must be understood of God's own peculiar name — 
Jehovah, I Am — which he revealed as his distinctive appel- 



CHRIS T AS JEHO VAH. 51 

lation at bis first appearance to Moses ; and as the names 
of God are indicative of bis nature, be who bad a right 
to bear the peculiar name of God must also have his es- 
sence. This view is* put beyond all doubt by the fact 
that Moses and the Israelites so understood the promise; 
for afterward, when their sins had provoked God to threaten 
not to go up with them himself, but to commit them to 
an angel who should drive out the Canaanites, etc., the 
people mourned over this as a great calamity ; and Moses 
betook himself to special intercession, and rested not until 
he obtained the repeal of the threat and the renewal of 
the promise, ' My presence shall go with thee, and I will 
give thee rest/ Nothing, therefore, can be more clear 
than that Moses and the Israelites considered the promise 
of the Angel, in whom was ' the name of God/ as a prom- 
ise that God himself would go with them." (R. Watson.) 

II. The Jehovah- Angel not the Father. 

The following proof is here offered: 

" The Angel of the Lord whose appearances are so 
often recorded is not the Father. This is clear from his 
appellation angel, with respect to which there can be but 
two interpretations. It is a name descriptive either of 
nature or of office. In the first view, it is generally em- 
ployed in the sacred Scriptures to designate one of an 
order of intelligences superior to man, and often employed 
in the service of man as the ministers of God, but still 
beings finite and created. We have, however, already 
proved that the Angel of the Lord is not a creature, and 
he is not, therefore, called an angel with reference to his 
nature. The term must, then, be considered as a term of 
office. He is called the Angel of the Lord because he was 
the messenger of the Lord — because he was sent to exe- 
cute his will, and to be his visible image and representa- 
tive. His office, therefore, under this appellation, was 
ministerial. But ministration is never attributed to the 



52 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Father. He who was sent must be a distinct person from 
him by whom he was sent — the messenger from him whose 
message he brought, and whose will he performed. The 
Angel of Jehovah is, therefore, a different person from the 
Jehovah whose messeuger he was ; and yet the Angel him- 
self is Jehovah, aud, as we have proved, truly divine. 
Thus does the Old Testament most clearly reveal to us, in 
the case of Jehovah and the Angel of Jehovah, two divine 
persons, while it still maintains its great fundamental prin- 
ciple that there is but one God." (Watson's Inst., Vol. I, 
pp. 492, 493.) 

The next step in the argument is to prove that the 
Jehovah- Angel of the Old Testament was 

III. Jesus Christ in his Pke-existent State. 

In support of this proposition, the following Scripture 
texts are presented: 

Jeremiah xxxi, 31, 32 : " Behold, the days come, saith the 
Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, 
and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant 
that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by 
the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." 

In this text notice the following points: 1. There is a 
promise to make a new covenant with Israel. 2. He who 
promises to make the covenant is called " the Lord " — 
"Jehovah." 3. Jehovah, the author of this new covenant, 
was the author of the covenant at Sinai. 4. The author 
of the new covenant is Christ, "This cup is the new 
testament [covenant, Rev. Ver.~] in my blood." (Luke xxii, 
20; see also, 1 Cor. xi, 25). In Hebrews viii, 8, Paul 
quotes Jeremiah's prophecy, and refers it to our Lord as a 
proof of his superiority to the Aaronic priesthood and 
Moses. In Hebrews xii, 24, Paul calls our Lord, "Jesus, 
the mediator of the new covenant." 5. From the fore- 
going it follows that Jesus Christ, the author of the new 
covenant, is one and the same with Jehovah God, the 
author of the covenant at Sinai. 



chr is t in ins r RE-EXISTENT s ta TE. 53 

Malachi hi, 1 : " Behold, I will send ray messenger, and 
he shall prepare the way before me ; and the Lord, whom ye 
seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of 
the covenant whom ye delight in ; behold, he shall come, saith 
the Lord of hosts." 

This prophecy of Malachi seems to be a quotation from 
and au enlargement of a preceding prophecy of Isaiah. 
(Chapter xl, 3.) Mark, in his Gospel (chapter i, 2), refers 
it to Isaiah. (See Revised New Testament). The text 
predicts the coming of a person called " my messenger." 
This person Christ identifies as "John the Baptist." 
(Matt, xi, 10; Luke vii, 27, and i, 76.) The person 
called "my messenger" was to prepare the way of the 
Lord (Jehovah) ; but John the Baptist was this "messen- 
ger," and he prepared the way of Christ ; and Mark, the 
Evangelist, declares that his doing so fulfilled this proph- 
ecy of Malachi. Hence, Christ must be the Jehovah of 
the Old Testament. 

But this text also predicts the coming of a Divine 
Being, called "the Lord whom ye seek" — t. e. , the ex- 
pected Messiah. He is also called " the Messenger of the 
Covenant" — i. e., "the Angel of the Covenant;" finally, 
he is called the Lord of hosts — "Jehovah of Sabaoth." 
This Divine Person is the Lord of the temple. The tem- 
ple is called "his temple." No sincere person will deny 
that it is the temple at Jerusalem that is spoken of. Nor 
may it be questioned that the Lord of this temple is the 
Jehovah God of the Jews. He dwelt in that temple. 
(1 Kings ix, 3.) It was dedicated to "the Lord God of 
Israel." (1 Kings viii, 25-30.) He called it "my house." 
(Isa. lvi, 7.) Mark xi, 17, applies this prophecy to Christ, 
and identifiies this "Angel of the Covenant" — " the Lord 
of hosts" — with Christ. Christ comes to the temple, ex- 
ercises the authority of its Lord, and calls it "my house." 
Hence, Christ and the Lord of hosts are one and the same 
Person. 



51 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

"In this prophecy of the Messiah are three palpable 
and incontrovertible proofs of his Divinity : First, he is 
identified with Jehovah — * He shall prepare the way be- 
fore me, saith Jehovah/ Secondly, he is represented as the 
proprietor of the temple. Thirdly, he is characterized as 
Ha Adonai — 'the Sovereign' — a title nowhere given, in 
this form, to any except Jehovah. In its anarthrous state 
the noun Adonai is applicable to any owner, possessor, or 
ruler, and it is applied in the construct state to Jehovah 
as Adonai leal ha-arets — the Possessor of the whole earth 
(Joshua iii, 11, 13) ; but when it takes the article, as here, 
it is used xar tJoyjjVy and exclusively of the Divine Be- 
ing. See Exod. xxiii, 17; xxxiv, 23; Isa. i, 24; iii, 1; 
x, 16, 33 ; xix, 4." (Hengstenberg's Minor Prophets.) 

Psalm lxviii, 16-19, 29 : " Why leap ye, ye high hills? This 
is the hill which God desireth to dwell in ; yea, the Lord will dwell 
in it forever. The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even 
thousands of angels ; the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in 
the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high ; thou hast led 
captivity captive ; thou hast received gifts for men ; yea, for the 
rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them. 
Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits, even 
the God of our salvation. Selah. Because of thy temple at 
Jerusalem shall kings bring presents unto thee." 

Ephesians iv, 8: "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended 
up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." 

The Divine Hero of the Psalm is called " God," " Lord," 
also "Lord" (Adonai). He is the God of the temple at 
Jerusalem, verse 29 ; but Christ claimed that temple as 
his. (Matt, xxi, 1-16.) He is called "the God of our 
salvation," verse 19; but Christ is the God of our salva- 
tion. (Matt, i, 21-23.) It is predicted that this "Jeho- 
vah God" will "dwell among men," verse 18; but it was 
Christ who dwelt among men. "The Word was made 
flesh, and dwelt among us." (John i, 14.) Because of this 
he is said to have been a partaker of flesh and blood. 
(Heb. ii, 14.) This Jehovah God was to ascend " on 



CHRIST IN HIS PRE-EXISTENT STATE. 55 

high," and to receive " gifts for men," verse 18. In Ephe- 
sians iv, 8, Paul quotes this text, and applies it to Christ 
as a prediction of his ascension to heaven; thus putting it 
beyond all question that Jesus Christ was the Jehovah of 
the Old Testament, 

Hebrews xi, 24-26 : "By faith, Moses, when he was come 
to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 
choosing rather to sutler affliction with the people of God, than 
to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the re- 
proach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: 
for he had respect unto the recompense of reward." 

Richard Watson says that this passage is "of easy in- 
terpretation, wdien it is admitted that the Jehovah of the 
Israelites, whose name and worship Moses professed, and 
Christ were the same Person. For this worship he was 
reproached by the Egyptians, who preferred their own idol- 
atry, and treated, as all apostates do, the true religion, the 
pure worship of the former ages from which they had de- 
parted, with contempt. To be reproached for the sake of 
Jehovah, and to be reproached for Christ, were convertible 
phrases with the apostle, because he considered Jehovah 
Christ to be the same Person." 

1 'The reproach of Christ" is not merely a reproach 
like that of Christ, but reproach for the sake of Christ. 
It is described as reviling, slander, persecution, shame, 
distresses, which are suffered and endured for the name of 
Christ, for Christ's sake. "Therefore we both labor and 
suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is 
the Savior of all men." 

"The reproach of Christ" is reproach suffered for the 
sake of Christ; as "the marks of the Lord Jesus" are 
the marks of the stripes that were suffered for the sake of 
the Lord Jesus. (Gal. vi, 17.) As Moses bore this re- 
proach for the sake of Christ, it follows that Christ must 
have been the God of the Israelites in that day ; but their 
God was Jehovah, consequently Christ was their Jehovah. 



56 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 

Hebrews i, 1 : " God, who at sundry times and in divers 
manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 
hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." 

This text is not unfrequently quoted as an objection to 
the doctrine that Jesus Christ was the Jehovah of the Old 
Testament. Bat there is no opposition between the text 
and the doctrine. The text asserts the simple fact that 
God the Father had spoken to men; it does not deny" that 
the Son existed in the past days of the Mosaic dispensa- 
tion ; nor that he was called Jehovah ; nor that the Israel- 
ites served and worshiped him as God. 

Hebrews ii, 2, 3 : ' ' If the word spoken by angels was stead- 
fast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just 
recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so 
great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the 
Lord." 

This text has also been quoted as an objection. But 
an analysis of the text will show that there is no contra- 
diction. The text does not speak of the authorship of 
the law, but of the ministration by which it was delivered. 
Paul declares that it was "spoken" by angels, but says 
nothing of its authorship. There is nothing in the text 
which denies that Christ was the Jehovah God of Israel ; 
and that, as the Jehovah God, he gave the Ten Com- 
mandments, beginning with the words, "I am the Lord 
thy God," etc. There is nothing in the text denying these 
truths ; on the contrary, Paul has amply proved them by 
his quotations from Jeremiah xxxi, 31, as he gives it in 
Hebrews viii, 8. 

DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 

I. "Jehovah." This is the name of God, and implies 
his eternal self-existence and unchangeability of nature and 
character. The Bible speaks of this name as follows: 
" My name Jehovah." (Exodus vi, 3.) " This is my name 
forever, and this my memorial unto all generations." 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 57 

(Exodus iii, 14, 15.) "Thy name, O Lord, forever, thy 
memorial throughout all generations." (Psalm cxxxv, 13.) 
"The Lord is his memorial." (Hosea xii, 5.) " Seek him 
that maketh the seven stars and Oriou, and turneth the 
shadow of death iuto the morning, and maketh the day 
dark with night; that calleth for the waters of the sea, 
and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: the 
Lord is his name." (Amos v, 8.) "I am the Lord; I 
change not." (Mai. iii, 6.) "I am the Lord: that is my 
name : and my glory will I not give to another." (Isaiah 
xlii, 8.) " Whose name alone is Jehovah." (Psalm 
lxxxiii, 18.) Similar quotations might be made ad libitum, 
but the foregoing are sufficient to show that the name de- 
notes a nature which is eternal, self-existent, and unchange- 
able ; in other words, Supreme Deity. Professor Noyes 
translates the name thus: "The Unchangeable — he who 
always will be what he now is." (Notes on Jeremiah.) 
"The title Jehovah includes the past, the present, and the 
future, Eternal." (Bickersteth.) "The name Jehovah 
represents God as pure existence, in contradistinction from 
every created object, the existence of which is always com- 
paratively a non-existence. Pure existence leads to im- 
mutability of essence. Because God is, he is also that 
which he is, invariably the same. And from the immuta- 
bility of his nature there follows, of necessity, the immu- 
tability of his will, which is based upon his nature." 
(Hengstenberg). " He is, therefore, not merely the One 
who, without beginning or end, is all-sufficient in him- 
self — the causa sui who acts from his own free will and is 
absolutely self-controlled — but he also continues to be for 
his people that which from the beginning he showed him- 
self to be, and fulfills everything which he either promises 
or threatens. Hence he is the faithful and true God 
(Ps. xxxiii, 4; Numbers xxiii, 19), who is a firm Defense 
and Kock to all who put their trust in him (Ps. xviii, 
2, 3; Isa. xxvi, 3, 4; Deut. vii, 9, 10; Josh, xxiii, 



58 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

14, 16; 1 Kings viii, 56; 2 Kings x, 10"), (Christlieb, 
Modern Unbelief, p. 214.) 

This name Jehovah is given to Christ. In 1 Peter ii, 
7, 8, Christ is said to be "a stone of stumbling and a 
rock of offense ;" but in Isaiah viii, 13, 14, from whence 
Peter quotes, Christ is called "Jehovah of hosts." In 
Zeeh. xii, 8-10, where the piercing of Christ's side is pre- 
dicted, Christ calls himself Jehovah — " They shall look on 
me whom they have pierced." (Compare John xix, 34, 37.) 
In Isaiah vi, 1-9, the seraphim call Christ " Jehovah Sab- 
aoth." (Compare John xii, 39-41.) When we reflect 
that God claims the name "Jehovah" as his "memorial 
to all generations" — claims it as being his "alone," and 
protests that he will not give his "glory to another" — it 
must be evident that the Being who wears that Dame must 
be the Supreme God; but Christ is often called Jehovah, 
hence Christ must be the Supreme God. It has been ob- 
jected to this view of the subject that the name " Jehovah' 
was sometimes given to finite things, places, and persons ; 
hence the wearing of the name does not indicate supreme 
Divinity. A little reflection will show this objection to be 
without force. 1. The instances in which it is so applied 
are comparatively rare. 2. When it is applied to finite ob- 
jects, places, and persons, it is for the purpose of com- 
memorating some memorable action of Jehovah connected 
with these objects, or some relation which they held to 
him. "So c Jehovah-jireh, in the mount of the Lord it 
shall be seen ' — or, * the Lord will see or provide ' — referred 
to his interposition to save Isaac, and, probably, to the 
provision of the future sacrifice of Christ. The same ob- 
servation may be made as to Jehovah Nissi, Jehovah Shal- 
lum, etc. ; they are names, and not descriptive of places, 
but of events connected with them, which marked the in- 
terposition and character of God himself. It is an unset- 
tled point among critics whether Jah, which is sometimes 
found in composition as a proper name of a man — as Abi- 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 59 

jah ('Jehovah is my father'), Adonijah ('Jehovah is my 
lord'), be an abreviation of Jehovah or not, so that the 
case will afford 110 ground of argument. But if it were, 
it would avail nothing, for it is found only in a combiued 
form, and evidently relates not to the persons who bore 
these names as a descriptive appellation, but to some con- 
nection which existed, or was supposed to exist, between 
them and the Jehovah they acknowledged as their God. 
The cases would have been parallel had our Lord been 
called Abijah — 'Jehovah is my father' — or Jedidiah — 4 the 
beloved of Jehovah.' Nothing, in that case, would have 
been furnished, so far as mere name was concerned, to dis- 
tinguish him from his countrymen bearing the same appel- 
lations ; but he is called Jehovah himself, a name which the 
Scriptures give to no person whatever, except to each of 
the sacred Three, who stand forth in the pages of the Old 
and New Testaments, crowned with this supreme and ex- 
clusive honor and eminence." (Watson.) 

II. " Lord." — The title Lord is not, " like the Jehovah 
of the Old Testament, an incommunicable name; but, in 
its highest sense, it is universally allowed to belong to 
God; and if, in this highest sense, it is applied to Christ, 
then is the argument valid that in the sacred writers, 
whether used to express the self and independent exist- 
ence of him who bears it, or that dominion which, from 
its nature and circumstances, must be divine, it contains a 
notation of true and absolute divinity. 

" The first proof of this is, that both in the Septuagint 
and by the writers of the New Testament it is the term by 
which the name Jehovah is translated. The Socinians 
have a fiction that Kvpws properly answers to Adonai, be- 
cause the Jews were wont, in reading, to substitute that 
name in place of Jehovah. But this is sufficiently answered 
by Bishop Pearson, who observes that ' it is not probable 
that the LXX should think Kbptoq to be the proper inter- 
pretation of Adonai, and yet give it to Jehovah only in the 



60 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

place of Adonai; for if they had it would have followed 
that when Adonai and Jehovah had met in one sentence, 
they would not have put another word for Adonai and 
placed Kvpws for Jehovah, to which, of itself, according 
to their observation, it did not belong.' 'The reason, also, 
of the assertion is most uncertain; for, though it be con- 
fessed that the Masoreths did read Adonai when they found 
Jehovah, and Josephus, before them, expresses the sense 
of the Jews of his age that the rerpaypafxiiarov was not to 
be pronounced, and before him Philo speaks as much, 
yet it followeth not from thence that the Jews were so 
superstitious above three hundred years before, which 
must be proved before we can be assured that the LXX 
read Adonai for Jehovah, and for that reason translated it 
Kuptos.' (Discourse on Creed.) The supposition is, how- 
ever, wholly overturned by several passages, in which such 
an interchange of the names could not be made in the 
original without manifestly depriving them of all meaning, 
and which absurdity could not, therefore, take place in a 
translation and be thus made permanent. It is sufficient 
to instance Exodus vi, 2, 3: 'I am the Lord [Jehovah]: 
I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, unto Jacob, by 
the name of God Almighty ; but by my name Jehovah 
was I not known unto them.' This, it is true, is rather an 
obscure passage; but whatever may be its interpretation, 
this is clear, that a substitution of Adonai for Jehovah 
would deprive it of all meaning whatever, and yet here 
the LXX translate Jehovah by Kbpioq. 

" Kupioq — Lord — is, then, the word into which the 
Greek of the Septuagint renders the name Jehovah; and 
in all passages in which Messias is called by that pe- 
culiar title of divinity, we have the authority of this ver- 
sion to apply it, in its full and highest signification, to 
Jesus Christ, who is himself that Messiah. For this reason, 
and also because, as men inspired, they were directed to fit 
and proper terms, the writers of the New Testament apply 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 61 

this appellation to their Master when they quote these 
prophetic passages as fulfilled in him. They found it used 
in the Greek version of the Old Testament, in its highest 
possible import, as a rendering of Jehovah. Had they 
thought Jesus less than God, they ought to have avoided, 
and must have avoided, giving to him a title which would 
mislead their readers, or else have intimated that they did 
not use it in its sense as a title of divinity, but in its very 
lowest, as a term of merely human courtesy, or, at best, 
of human dominion. But we have no such intimation ; 
and if they wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit of 
Truth, it follows that they used it as being understood to 
be fully equivalent to the title Jehovah itself. This their 
quotations will show. The evangelist Matthew (iii, 3) 
quotes and applies to Christ the celebrated prophecy of 
Isaiah xl, 3: 'For this is he that was spoken of by the 
Prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the 
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his 
paths straight/ The other evangelists make the same ap- 
plication of it, representing John as the herald of Jesus, 
the 'Jehovah* of the prophet and their ' Kuptoq.' It 
was, therefore, in the highest possible sense that they used 
the term, because they used it as fully equivalent to Je- 
hovah. So, again, in Luke i, 16, 17: 'And many of 
the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God, 
and shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias.' 
'Him,' unquestionably, refers to 'the Lord their God;' 
and we have here a proof that Christ bears that eminent 
title of divinity, so frequent in the Old Testament, ' the 
Lord God/ Jehovah Aleim ; and also that Kupwq answered, 
in the view of an inspired writer, to the name Jehovah. 
On this point the apostle Paul also adds his testimony 
(Romans x, 13): 'Whosoever shall call upon the name 
of the Lord shall be saved ;' which is quoted from Joel ii, 
32 : ' Whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall 
be delivered/ Other passages might be added, but the 



62 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

argument does not rest upon their number. These are so 
explicit that they are amply sufficient to establish the im- 
portant conclusion that, in whatever senses the term 'Lord' 
may be used, and though the writers of the New Testa- 
ment, like ourselves, use it occasionally in a lower sense, 
yet they use it, also, in its highest possible sense and in 
its loftiest signification when they intended it to be un- 
derstood as equivalent to Jehovah, and in that sense they 
apply it to Christ. 

"But even when the title 'Lord' is not employed to 
render the name Jehovah in passages quoted from the Old 
Testament, but is used as the common appellation of 
Christ after his resurrection, the disciples so connect it 
with other terms, and with circumstances which so clearly 
imply divinity, that it can not reasonably be made a ques- 
tion but that they themselves considered it as a divine 
title, and intended that it should be so understood by their 
readers. In that sense they applied it to the Father, and 
it is clear that they did not use it in a lower sense when 
they gave it to the Sou. It is put absolutely and by way 
of eminence ' the Lord.' It is joined with 'God' — so in 
the passage above quoted from St. Luke, where Christ is 
called the Lord God, and when Thomas, in an act of ad- 
oration, calls him * My Lord and my God.' When it is 
used to express dominion, that dominion is represented as 
absolute and universal, and therefore divine : ' He is 
Lord of all/ ' King of kings and Lord of lords.' ' Thou, 
Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the 
earth ; and the heavens are the works of thy hands. They 
shall perish ; but thou remainest : and they all shall w T ax 
old, as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou change 
them, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, 
and thy years shall not fail.'" (Watson's Institutes.) 

III. God. The import of the title "God"— its value 
as a proof of the supreme Divinity — will be developed in 
the course of the discussion. In proof of the proposition 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 63 

that "Jesus Christ is called God," I present the following 
texts and arguments : 

Matthew i, 22, 23: "Now all this was done that it might 
be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, say- 
ing, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth 
a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being in- 
terpreted is, God with us." 

So strong is the testimony that these two verses fur- 
nish to the supreme Divinity of Christ, that Unitarians 
have made repeated efforts to impeach the authenticity of 
the first two chapters of Matthew's Gospel, but so far with- 
out success. The proofs of their authenticity are over- 
whelming. 1. They are found in all unmutilated Greek 
manuscripts and in all ancient versions. 2. The earliest 
Fathers had them in their copies. 3. The early heretics 
and opponents of Christianity were acquainted with them. 
4. The commencement of the third chapter presupposes 
something antecedent. 5. The diction of the two chapters 
bears the same impress and character as the whole Gospel. 
6. The authenticity of these two chapters is accepted by 
Davidson, Home, Nast, Harman, Westcott and Hort, Al- 
ford, Lange, Tischendorf, Olshausen, and the Revised 
Version. In the face of these facts the effort to question 
the authenticity of these two chapters savors more of a 
captious spirit than it does of a regard for truth. 

It will not be denied that Matthew is here speaking of 
Christ, and that he here designates Christ as the person 
whose name should be called Emmanuel, "God with us." 
It would seem that a text so plain and forcible ought to 
be full and sufficient proof that Jesus Christ is God as 
well as man ; but those who are opposed to the doctrine of 
the supreme Divinity of Christ have bent all their energies 
to destroy the force of the text. Such of their objections 
as seem to be of importance will be duly noticed. Dr. 
Worcester objects that Isaiah gave this name "Immanuel," 
"to the people of Judah." (Chapter viii, 8.) This is not 



64 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

correct. In the text to which he alludes, " Immanuel" is 
represented as the Lord and owner of the land of Judah — 
"Thy land, O Immanuel. " There may be some contro- 
versy whether these words should be applied to a prince 
living in Isaiah's day, or to Christ ; but the application of 
them "to the people of Judah" is out of all question. 
On this text (chapter viii, 8) Professor Noyes (Unitarian) 
remarks: "Referring, as some suppose, to Hezekiah, . . . 
or as others, with much greater probability, believe, to the 
Messiah." The prophet "addressed himself to Immanuel 
in person, as the proprietor of the land ; the promised 
Messiah, in the form of God, was then Lord of that land 
especially ; there, in the fullness of time, he would surely 
assume human nature, and appear in the form of a serv- 
ant; and he would therefore certainly deliver his land 
from Sennacherib's invasion, for his own sake and for the 
sake of his promise to David his servant." (Scott, in loco.) 

The author of the "Examination of Liddon's Bamp- 
ton Lectures" objects, that "a child to be called Imman- 
uel (God with us), in token of Divine guardianship and 
assistance, was soon to be born (compare viii, 8)." But 
Isaiah viii, 8, does not furnish any proof that Immanuel 
was to be born soon ; it mentions Immanuel as the owner 
and ruler of the land, but says nothing of the time of his 
birth. 

Unitarians have taxed their ingenuity to show that 
the prophecy quoted by Matthew from Isaiah vii, 14, had 
no reference to Mary as the mother of Christ, and was 
only applied to her by way of accommodation. On this 
point Professor Noyes writes thus: " The damsel; i. e., my 
damsel, the damsel betrothed to me. I see not what other 
force the article can have in this connection. So iu Prov. 
vii, 19, 'the goodman' means 'my husband/ So in our 
idiom, the governor, the schoolmaster, is our governor, etc." 
To this I answer: Not necessarily, nor even commonly. 
" The goodman," as a title for the husband, is not a com- 



DIYIXE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 65 

mon mode of expression with wives; and on the lips of 
the woman mentioned in Proverbs vii, 19, it marks her 
alienation from her husband. A virtuous woman would 
have been more likely to have said "my husband," while 
the title "the goodman" would have been natural on the 
lips of a stranger. The phrases, " the governor," "the 
school-teacher," are common titles for such officers, aud do 
not imply any relationship between these officers and the 
parties speaking of them; hence the article ha, "the" 
before almah, does not imply any relationship between 
" the virgin" and any person or persons then living. 

Noyes says that the term almah "means a young 
woman of marriageable age, without reference to virginity." 
To express that idea, Isaiah would have used a different 
word ; namely, bethulah. But the question here is not 
about the meaning of bethulah, but of almah. Does almah 
in the text mean "virgin?" The fact that bethulah means 
" a virgin" is no proof that almah may not also mean 
"virgin." "Almah is distinguished from bethulah, which 
designates the virgin state as such, and in this signification 
occurs in Joel i, 8 ; also where the bride laments over her 
bridegroom, whom she has lost by death. Inviolate chas- 
tity is, in itself, not implied in the word. But certain it 
is that almah designates an unmarried person in the first 
years of youth ; and if this be the case, unviolated chas- 
tity is a matter of course in this context; for, if the 
mother of the Savior was to be an unmarried person, 
she could be a virgin only; and, in general, it is incon- 
ceivable that the prophet should have brought forward a 
relation of impure love. In favor of an unmarried per- 
son is, in the first instance, the derivation. Being derived 
from alam — ' to grow up,' ' to become marriageable ' — 
almah can denote nothing else than puella nubilis. But 
still more decisive is the usus loquendi. In Arabic and 
Syriac the corresponding words are never used of married 
women." (Hengstenberg's Christol., Vol. II, p. 45.) 



66 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 

Ahnah, and alamoth (plural), occur in the Old Testament 
nine times. Let us examine each instance. 1. Genesis 
xxiv, 43 : " When the virgin cometh forth to draw water." 
This occurs in the prayer of Abraham's servant, when he 
was seeking a wife for Isaac. He had asked the Lord to 
show him the virgin that should be Isaac's wife, and he 
calls her "/ia almak." 2. Exodus ii, 8: "And the maid 
went." This was the virgin sister of Moses, watching her 
baby-brother. 3. Proverbs xxx, 19: " The way of a man 
with a maid" This refers clearly to a virgin, but does 
not prove incontinence on her part. 4. and 5. "Ala- 
moth" — 1 Chron. xv, 20; Psalm xlvi, 1: It is the name 
of some matter pertaining to music, and is foreign to the 
question discussed here. 6. Psalm lxviii, 26: "Damsels 
playing with timbrels." The most reasonable translation 
of the word in this place is "virgins." 7. and 8. Canti- 
cles i, 3; vi, 8: " Virgins love thee;" " Virgins without 
number." In chapter vi, 8, they are clearly distinguished 
from both "wives" and "concubines," thus clearly estab- 
lishing their virginity. 9. This is the instance of the text, 
Isaiah vii, 14. In the light of the foregoing examination 
we are convinced that, to express the idea of virginity, it 
was not necessary for the prophet to have used any other 
word but ahnah, and that Isaiah here foretells that Christ 
would be born of a virgin mother, and that Matthew here 
declares that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled in the birth of 
Jesus Christ of the virgin Mary. The birth of a child 
was promised ; the mother of this child was to be either a 
married woman or a virgin. " Does Isaiah offer Ahaz a 
miracle, either in the depth or in the height above, and 
when he seems to tell the house of David that God of 
his own accord would perform a greater work than they 
could ask, does he sink to a sign that nature produces 
every day? Is that to be called a wonder (which word 
implies an uncommon, surprising, and supernatural event) 
which happens constantly by the ordinary laws of genera- 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 67 

tion ? How little does such a birth answer the solemn 
apparatus which the prophet uses to raise their expecta- 
tion of some great matter? Hear ye, O house of David! 
Behold, the Lord himself will give you a sign, worthy of 
himself, and what is it? Why, a young married woman 
shall be with child! How ridiculous must such a discov- 
ery make the prophet, aud how highly must it enrage the 
audience, to hear a mau, at such a juncture as this, begin 
an idle and impertinent tale, which seems to banter and 
insult their misery, rather than administer any consolation 
under it!" (Stackhouse's History of the Bible.) 

Burnap says: "To be called Immanuel. And why? 
Because he was to be an incarnation of Jehovah ? By no 
means. But because God was to defend and deliver his 
people before he should grow up to know good and evil. 
The nature of the child was to have nothing to do with 
his name ; nor was it on account of anything that the child 
was to do that the name Immanuel was to be given to it, 
but on account of something that was to be done by God 
before the child should be old enough to discern good and 
evil." It would be difficult to imagine a more gross per- 
version of the case than the foregoing quotation contains. 
The name "Emmanuel" is not symbolical, but declarative. 
It does not symbolize either defense or salvation, but 
simply declares the union of God with man. The name 
does not refer to an act of God ; it does not declare ac- 
tion but nature. It is a declaration of Christ's nature as 
"God with us." 

The prophecy of the birth of Immanuel, the virgin's 
Son, has its fulfillment, and its only fulfillment, in the birth 
of Christ. In proof of this I offer the following points : 
1. The promise of a deliverer, made in the Garden of 
Eden to Adam and Eve, contemplated the birth of a vir- 
gin's Son. The promised " seed" was to be " the seed of 
the woman;" i. e., the woman alone, the woman without 
connection with a man. Christ was most peculiarly " the 



68 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

seed of the woman," as lie had a human mother and no 
human father. (See Jacobus on Genesis.) The words of 
Mary well agree with this: "How shall this be, seeing I 
know not a man?" (Luke i, 34.) 

""/*« is never ixfiarcxov, so that (Kuinoel and other 
interpreters), but always tsXc/.ov, in order that. It presup- 
poses here that what was done stood in the connection of 
purpose with the Old Testament declaration, and, conse- 
quently, in the connection of the divine necessity as an 
actual fact, by which the prophecy was destined to be ful- 
filled. The divine decree, expressed in the latter, must be 
accomplished, and to that end this, namely, which is related 
from verse 18 onwards, came to pass, and that according 
to the whole of its contents, o\ov" (Meyer.) 

2. Isaiah's prophecy is not concerning any indefiuite 
virgin, but a particular virgin — one already thought of — 
Hie virgin. This interpretation of the text is sustained 
by the following rule from Nordheimer's Hebrew Gram- 
mar, Part II, p. 15: The article is subjectively "prefixed 
to a common noun by way of emphasis, and to point it 
out as one which, although neither previously or subse- 
quently described, is still viewed as definite in the mind 
of the writer." 

3. Jesus Christ is the only person born into the world 
the son of a pure virgin. There never was one before 
him, and there has been none since him. It is of no avail 
to say that the future mother of the "Son" was a virgin 
at the time of the uttering of the prophecy. The terms 
of the text demand that the mother of the "Son" should 
be a virgin at the time of the "Son's" birth. Immanuel 
was not the virgin's Son if his mother was not a virgin at 
the time when he was born. This ties the fulfillment of 
the prophecy down to the birth of Christ, the Son of 
Mary, the virgin. 

Isaiah, in the name of God, offered Ahaz a sign. This 
offer Ahaz refused. This act of the king called the mind 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 69 

of the prophet to contemplate the stubborn perversity and 
rebellion of the house of David. He sees their rebellion 
in the future as well as in the past. It is of the Jewish 
people he speaks, and to them this prophecy is given. 
The virgin of the prophet " was the virgin of prophetic 
foresight. The tenses of the Hebrew in this passage are 
not all future. Hengstenberg renders it thus: * Behold 
the virgin has conceived and bears a Son, and calls his 
name Immanuel.' All this shows that Hengstenberg's 
view of the prophetic vision is correct. The powerful 
conceptions of the prophet's mind become as a present re- 
ality. His mind's eye sees the panorama of future objects 
and events now standing and moving before him. Time 
is dropped out of the account. This explains what, to 
many commentators, has been a great difficulty in the fol- 
lowing verse, Isaiah vii, 16. Before this ideal child, be- 
held in vision as now being born, is able to know good 
from evil, these two invading kings shall disappear. Isaiah 
takes the birth of the infant conceptually present as the 
measure of the continuance of the invading kings. That 
Immanuel, the predicted seed of the woman, the prophet 
sees as already being born. He is being fed on nourish- 
ing food— namely, butter and honey — to bring him to early 
maturity; but in a briefer period than his growth to intel- 
ligence shall require, these invading kings shall be over- 
thrown and Israel be rescued. Thus was the Messiah yet to 
be born — a sign not, indeed, to unwilling Ahaz, but to 
Israel, of her speedy deliverance and permanent preserva- 
tion. Well and wisely, therefore, does the inspired evan- 
gelist, now that the Messiah is born, adduce this prophecy 
to show its fulfillment in him. The amount of the whole 
is, that the spirit of prophecy availed itself of the occasion 
of Ahaz's unbelief to utter and leave on record a striking 
prediction of the incarnation." (Whedon.) 

It is often objected that such significant names prove 
nothing in regard to the nature or dignity of those who 



70 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

wear them, and the naming of Ishmael is referred to as an 
illustration. But the naming of Hagar's son and the nam- 
ing of Immanuel have few if any points in common. 
Ishmael's name had no reference to his own nature, but to 
the fact that his mother's prayers had been heard by God. 
(Gen. xvi, 11) Immanuers name has no reference to any 
act of God's providence, but is declarative of Christ's nature, 
as "God with us." In view of this difference, "it would 
be improper to say that Hagar's son was a person in the 
Deity," and it would be equally improper to deny that 
Jesus Christ was "God manifest in the flesh." They are 
directed by God to call Christ Immanuel; "and there could 
be no reason with God to select this name but because its 
meaning denoted a reality. The person bears the name 
because he is what the name signifies. As the Lord was 
called Jesus, Savior, because he is Savior; and as he is 
called Christ, anointed, because he is the Anointed ; so 
he is called Immanuel, God w 7 ith us, because he is God 
with us. He is God with man; he is Divinity with hu- 
manity." (Whedon.) 

Luke i, 16, 17: *' And many of the children of Israel shall 
he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in 
the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers 
to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just: 
to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." 

These are the words of the angel Gabriel to Zacharias, 
announcing the coming birth of John the Baptist. It was 
to be the work of John to prepare the way of Christ, and 
to turn the children of Israel to him ; but the person to 
whom John was to turn the children of Israel is here 
called "the Lord their God;" consequently Jesus Christ is 
the God of Israel. 

Isaiah ix, 6: " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son 
is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and 
his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty 
God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST 71 

In the effort to dispose of this text, Unitarians gener- 
ally take common ground with the Jews, and assert that 
the words were originally spoken, not of Christ, but of 
King Hezekiah. The notion that the text refers to Hez- 
ekiah is not supported by any word of Scripture. On the 
contrary, it collides harshly with other portions of the text. 
Without detracting from either the mental or moral excel- 
lencies of Hezekiah, it will still be evident that to apply 
to a mere man the titles ''Wonderful, Counselor, The 
mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace," 
would be an hyperbole unwarranted by any Scriptural anal- 
ogy. How could he be called "The Prince of Peace" 
who had no power to give peace to others, and who spent 
the larger share of his active life in war? How could it 
be said of Hezekiah that "of the increase of his govern- 
ment and peace there shall be no end," when he reigned 
only twenty-nine years, and his son Manasseh w 7 as carried 
captive to Babylon ? 

It is objected that "the text is not applied to Christ 
by any speaker or writer of the New Testament." It will 
be cheerfully admitted that this particular clause of the 
prophecy has not been specially applied to Christ by any 
New Testament speaker or writer ; but the text is only a 
detached portion of a prophecy concerning Christ, and 
this prophecy is applied to Christ in the New Testament 
by Matthew and by the angel Gabriel. Matthew "man- 
ifestly alludes to the words of the text by quoting those 
which precede them, and which he applies to the times of 
the Messiah; for, having related the imprisonment of 
John, and, in consequence of that, the retiring of Jesus 
Christ into Galilee, he adds that the divine Savior 'came 
and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea-coast, in 
the borders of Zabulon and Nephtbalim : that it might 
be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, say- 
ing, The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, by 
the w r ay of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gen- 



72 DOCTRINE OF TEE TRINITY. 

tiles : the people which sat in darkness saw great light ; and 
to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light 
is sprung up' (Matt, iv, 16)." The angel Gabriel, "when 
he declared to Mary the choice which God had made of 
her to be the mother of the Messiah, applied to her Son 
the characters by which Isaiah describes the child in the 
text, and paints him in the same colors : ' Thou shalt con- 
ceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call 
his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called 
the Son of the highest ; and the Lord God shall give unto 
him the throne of his father David. And he shall reign 
over the house of Jacob forever ; and of his kingdom 
there shall be no end.'" (Saurin's Sermons, Vol. I, 
p. 161.) 

2 Peter i, 1 : " Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of 
Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith 
with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus 
Christ." 

The latter clause of this text ought to be rendered 
thus: "Through the righteousness of Jesus Christ our 
God and Savior." It is so rendered by Wesley, Clarke, 
Home, MacKnight, Bloomfield, Lange, Alford, and the 
Revised New Testament. Unitarians will not deny that 
in verse 11, Christ is called both " Lord and Savior;" 
but the construction of the two clauses is exactly alike, 
and if verse 11 proves that Christ is both "Lord and 
Savior," then this verse proves him to be both " God and 
Savior." 

1 Timothy hi, 16 : " And without controversy great is the 
mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified 
in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, 
believed on in the world, received up into glory." 

There has been a great deal of controversy about the 
true reading of the first clause of this text ; whether it 
should read Oedq £<pavspd>ft7) or oq tyavepcoftr), or in English, 
should it read"GW w 7 as manifest," or, "who was manifest." 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 73 

In my argument on the text I will accept the reading 
q* ("w/io"), as given in Westcott and Hort, and in the 
Revised Version. & 0q y "wlw," is a relative pronoun, and 
refers to some antecedent, either expressed or implied. 
Westcott and Hort ( New Testament, Vol. II, part 2, p. 
134) say: " These clauses were a quotation from an 
early Christian hymn ; and, if so, the proper and original 
antecedent would doubtless have been found in the pre- 
ceding context, which is not quoted." Suppose this to be 
true, yet the only way in which Paul could make the quo- 
tation intelligent to his readers would be to introduce the 
quotation in such a manner, as would make the 6'<r, 
"who" the relative of an antecedent that he had already 
mentioned or introduced. For the apostle to introduce a 
quotation commencing with a relative pronoun, without 
any antecedent having been indicated by him, would be 
to involve the meaning of the quotation in hopeless 
uncertainty. We naturally expect to find its antecedent 
in the portion of Scripture immediately p?*eceding the 
text. In this expectation we will not be disappointed. 
Verse 15 contains three substaniives, " the Church, " 
"the living God," and " the truth;" it is but reasonable 
to believe that one of these three substantives must be the 
antecedent to "who." Whatever the antecedent of " who" 
is, it must agree with o<r in gender, and must be the 
proper subject of the six predicates that belong to o<; : 
that is, it must, like o<r, be of the masculine gender, and 
must be the subject of these six predicates; in other 
words, the antecedent to 6'c must have been " manifest in the 
flesh," and "justified in the Spirit," and " seen of angels," 
and "preached unto the Gentiles," and "believed on in 
the world," and " received up into glory." The antecedent 
of oq must be of the masculine gender, and must carry all 
six of these predicates. If either of these substantives 
(of verse 15) is not of the masculine gender, aud fails to 
carryall six of these Dredicat.es, then that substantive is 

7 



74 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

not the antecedent of og. But if we find a substantive 
of the masculine gender, and of which all six of these 
predicates are true, then that substantive is the proper 
antecedent of og. Let us bring forward the substantives 
found in verse 15, and test them. 

1. ' Exxfaiaia, " Church," is of the feminine gender, and 
does not agree with og, which is masculine, hence is not 
its antecedent. If it should be said that " the Church" 
is, in verse 15, called ofjcm Oeod, and that ohog is mascu- 
line, it is answered that to say that the Church "was mani- 
fest in the flesh," the Church was "justified in the Spirit," 
the Church was "seen of angels," the Church "was 
preached unto the Gentiles," etc, all of this is utterly 
discordant with the New Testament, and is without any 
meaning that a Christian can accept. "The Church" is 
not the subject of these predicates, and is not the ante- 
cedent of og. 2. "The truth," r^g aXrjftsiaq, is feminine, 
hence does not agree with og in gender. "The truth" 
is another name for the aggregate of the doctrines of 
Christianity, and has no existence separate from an intelli- 
gent being who believes or teaches it; it can not be said 
to be "received up into glory," for it is not the subject 
of reward. It is not the subject of these predicates, and 
is not the antecedent of og. There will not be any diffi- 
culty with the third substantive, "the living God;' 
Seoq agrees with og, being in the masculine gender. God, 
in Christ, "was manifest in the flesh;" God, in Christ, 
was "justified in the Spirit;" God, in Christ, was "seen 
of angels ;" God, in Christ, was "preached unto the Gen- 
tiles;" God, in Christ, was "believed on in the world;" 
God, in Christ, was "received up into glory." Hence, 
Christ was "God manifest in the flesh." 

Colossi ans n, 9: " For in him dwelleth all the fullness of 
the Godhead bodily." 

I think that it will be evident to any unprejudiced 
person who is acquainted with Greek grammar, that 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 75 

r?j<; Osotyjto': is the genitive of apposition. "It is a very 
common grammatical usage to annex the apposition in 
the genitive to the noun on which it depends." (Winer's 
Gram., New Testament, p. 531.) Winer gives the follow- 
ing illustrations of this rule ; (for the benefit of the En- 
glih reader I will give the English translation of the text 
cited.) Luke xxii, 1 : C H iopTy rmu a£u/w, " the feast of 
unleavened bread." John xiii, 1: Tr { q ioprrj<; too naa%a, 
"of the feast of the Passover." 2 Corinthians, v, 5: 
Tdv appaftwva too -Kvebp.aro'z^ "the earnest of the Spirit." 
Eph. i, 14 : 'Afipafiu)'; t7j<; xXypovo/itaq rjii&v, "the earnest of 
our inheritance." Rom. iv, 11 : SrjfisTov elafte n£ptTo/j.7j<; y 
"he received the sign of circumcision." John ii, 21 : 
Tod vaoo too (jd)jia.Toq aoToo, " the temple of his body." See 
also, John xi, 13; Acts ii, 33; iv, 22; Romans viii, 21; 
xv, 16; 1 Cor. v, 8; 2 Cor. v, 1; Eph. ii, 14; vi, 14; 
Col. iii, 24; Heb. vi, 1 ; xii, 11 ; Jas. i, 12; 1 Peter iii, 3. 
The text is correctly rendered, "In him dvvelleth all 
the fullness of the Godhead bodily." "The entire pleni- 
tude of the divine essence (not a mere emanation of that 
essence as the rising sect of the Gnostics taught) dwells, 
xhtoczsi, permanently dwells (it is no transient manifesta- 
tion), in him bodily, (Tajp.aTixajs, invested with a body. The 
Godhead in its fullness is incarnate in Christ. He is, 
therefore, not merely 0e6s (God), but, 6 deoq (the 
God), in the highest sense. More than Paul says can not 
be said." (Hodge.) 

John i, 1-18 : " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the be- 
ginning with God. All things were made by him; and without 
him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life ; 
and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in 
darkness ; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was 
a-man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came 
for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through 
him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to 
bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which 



76 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the 
world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew 
him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him 
not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power 
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his 
name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the 
flesh, nor the will of man, but of God. And the Word was 
made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the 
glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and 
truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he 
of whom I spake, He that cometh after me, is preferred before 
me; for he was before me. And of his fullness have all we 
received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, 
but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen 
God at any time ; the only begotten Son, which is in the 
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 

These eighteeen verses form what is frequently called 
"the proem of John's Gospel." In this proem "the 
Logos" is said to have been "in the beginning, " to have 
been "with God," and to be "God." This statement of his 
personality and of his supreme Deity is sustained by the 
declaration that "all things were made by him." In verses 
14-18, the Logos was identified with Jesus Christ, "the 
only begotten Son of God." " The Word of the Lord " is 
an Old Testament title for a divine person having 
the attributes and exercising the authority of Supreme 
Deity. Thus in Genesis xv, 1, 2: "The Word of the 
Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, 
Abram ; I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. 
And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me?" 
"Here the Word of the Lord is the speaker — 'the Word 
came saying:' a mere word may be spoken or said; but 
a personal Word only can say, 'I am thy shield.' The pro- 
noun refers to the whole phrase, i the Word of Jehovah ;' 
and if a personal Word be not understood, no person at 
all is mentioned by whom this message is conveyed, and 
whom Abram in reply, invokes as ' Lord God.' " (Watson.) 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 77 

1 Samuel hi, 21 : " The Lord revealed himself to Samuel 
in Shiloh by the word of the Lord." 

In this text " the word of the Lord" must mean either 
the subject matter of the revelation or a personal Word. 
To say that it means the subject matter of the revelation 
is to deprive the text of all meaning. "The Lord re- 
vealed himself by the revelation." Pretty well emascu- 
lated. It is first stated that the " Lord revealed [showed] 
himself to Samuel." Then it gives us the manner of the 
showing, to wit : by the personal word of Jehovah. This 
conclusion is strengthened by the following items : 

1. In verse 10 it is said: " The Lord came and stood." 
"It is most natural to understand the words came and stood 
as designating a visible appearance. God was not only per- 
sonally but visibly there, either in human form (Gen. xviii, 
2, 33 ; Josh, v, 13-15), or in some angelic or surprising man- 
ifestation. (Exodus iii, 2-6.) " (Whedon.) 

2. In verse 15 this revelation of God to Samuel is 
called "the vision," a name "which implies something 
more than a mere mental process" — a personal appearance. 
2 Sam. xxiv, 11 : "The word of the Lord came unto the 
prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and say," etc. Here 
we have a construction similar to that of Gen. xv, 1. This 
was a personal Word. None other could say "Go;" none 
but a personal Word could call himself "Lord," as he does 
in the next verse. For other manifestations of this personal 
Word, see 1 Kings vi, 11, 12 ; xvi, 1-3 ; 1 Chron. xvii, 3, 4 ; 
Isa. xxxviii, 4, 5 ; Jer. i, 4. The Targums, or Chaldee 
paraphrases of the Old Testament, were made for the use 
of the common people among the Jews, who, after their 
return from captivity, did not understand the original 
Hebrew. They were read in the synagogues every Sab- 
bath-day, and the Jews became familiar with their more 
common terms and phrases. These Targums used the 
phrase "The Word of the Lord" as a common title for 
Jehovah, thus: "The Word of the Lord created man." 



78 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

(Gen. i, 27.) "They heard the voice of the Word of 
the Lord." (Gen. iii, 8.) " Jehovah, thy God, his Word 
goeth before thee." (Deut. ix, 3.) " My Word is thy 
shield." (Gen. xv, 1.) ''Israel shall be saved by the 
Word of the Lord." (Isa. xlv, 17.) " My Word is with 
thee." (Jer. i, 8.) "The Lord said unto his Word." 
(Ps. ex, 1.) An examination of the foregoing passages 
will show that this personal Word was a Divine Being, 
who acted as the speaker or interpreter of the Godhead. 
That this title is appropriately applied to Christ is evident 
from the fact that he declares, or makes known, the 
Father to us. (Verse 18.) 

In proof that the Word was a person, I submit the 
following items: 

1. He is said to have been " in the beginning with God." 
It would be a mere truism to say this of an attribute ; for 
God and his attributes could never exist separately. 

2. He is called God: "The Word was God." The 
title "God" is applied by the sacred writers to the Supreme 
Being, and, with certain qualifications and limitations, to 
angels and men, but never to a thing. It always implies 
personality. 

3. He was the source of life. "In him was life." 
Life can come only from a person. 

4. The world was made by him. No matter whether 
he was the original author of creation or only an agent, 
in either case he must have been a person. 

5. John declares that the Logos " was the Light," but 
that John the Baptist "was not that Light." There was 
a possibility of confounding "the Word" with John the 
Baptist. To make this matter plain, I present the follow- 
ing points : There was a possibility of confounding some 
person with John the Baptist. You could not confound 
an attribute with John, but you might confound a person 
with him. The person who might be confounded with 
John is here called "the Light," and must be either the 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 79 

Father or the Word. There was no possibility of con- 
founding the Father with John ; for the Father was not 
personally visible to men, while John was ; hence the per- 
son who might be confounded with John the Baptist was 
the Word. This puts the personality of the Word beyond 
dispute. 

6. He owns property. " He came unto his own." The 
owner of property must be a person. 

7. He "gave power" to men. The gift of "power" 
can come only from a person. 

8. He " was made flesh ;" " that is, he became a man. 
But in what possible sense could an attribute become a 
man ? The Logos is ' the only begotten of the Father ;' 
but it would be uncouth to say of any attribute that it is 
begotten ; and if that were passed over, it would follow 
from this notion either that God has only one attribute, or 
that wisdom is not his only begotten attribute," (Watson.) 
The fact that he became incarnate stamps the fact of his 
personality. 

9. He dwelt among men. Dwelling is a personal act. 

10. He possessed "glory." But glory belongs only to 
a person. 

Let us now inquire what evidence the text furnishes 
of the Supreme Deity of the Word. It declares "the 
Word was God." In proof that John does not call Christ 
"God" in any inferior sense, but that he speaks of him 
as the Supreme God, I offer the following point: John 
teaches that Christ was eternal. "In the beginning was 
the Word." That this "beginning" refers to eternity is 
evident from verse 3: "All things were made by him, 
and without him was not anything made that was made." 
If all created things were made by Christ, then he must 
have existed before anything was made; hence was himself 
uncreated and eternal. 

Christ, as the pre-existent Creator of all things, is, in 
his very nature, eternal. It is no answer to this to quote 



80 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Hebrews i, 2 — "by whom he made the world" — and con- 
tend that Christ was merely the instrument in creation. 
Grant that he was the Father's agent in creation. As an 
agent, he was either created, or uncreated. He could 
not be a created agent; for John says, "All things were 
made by him ;" and for fear this should not be thought 
to cover every thing, he adds, "without him was not 
any thing made that was made;" thus settling the fact 
that he was the creator of every created thing. If he 
was a created agent, he must have created himself; but 
this is absurd. He was not created, hence must have 
been eternal; but Deity alone is eternal, hence Christ 
must be Supreme, Eternal Deity. 

Christ, the Logos, is the self-existent source of life. 
"In him was life." We have already seen that Christ 
was the creator of all things ; hence he is appropriately said 
to be the source of life; but the source of life must be 
the Self-existent, Omnipotent God. 

Hebrews i, 8 : " But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O 
God, is for ever and ever." 

In this text Christ is called "God." He is called 
such by the Eternal Father. Everlasting dominion is 
ascribed to him. These things are said in a manner so 
august and so dignified as to furnish irresistible proof of 
his supreme Divinity. In the crucible of Unitarian exege- 
sis this text has been subjected to a white heat, in the 
hope of destroying its testimony to the supreme Divinity of 
Christ. The text is a quotation from Psalms xlv, 6. Pro- 
fessor Noyes has rendered the text in Psalms, " Thy 
throne is God's for ever and ever." The English version 
is sustained by two considerations, which, when taken 
together, are unanswerable: 1. No honest scholar can 
deny that the common English translation is both easy 
and natural. 2. In both the Septuagint and the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, there is given a Greek translation of the 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 81 

text (6 ftpovoq (too 6 Osdq), that completely cancels that of 
Noyes; for no Unitarian skill can make these words mean 
"Thy throne is God's." 

* * The design of the apostle in quoting these words of 
the Psalmist is to prove the superiority of Christ to the 
heavenly messengers. He begins well, by showing that 
God makes the winds his messengers, and flames of fire his 
ministers, thus reducing angels to the condition of serv- 
ants; but he does not end well, if he say only that God 
is the throne of Christ, or the support of his authority. 
Where is the contrast? If he has given power to our 
Savior, and upholds him in the exercise of it, he has done 
the same thing to angels and other ministers of his will ; 
and how does his pre-eminence appear? If we read, 
'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever/ the point 
is decided, for he is God, and they are creatures." 
(Dick.) 

" Thy throne, God. This is the literal and gram- 
matical construction. The King is addressed as God (thus 
Aquila, 6 dpovoq goo Oei ; the other Greek versions have 
the same meaning, 6 9e6q). Feeling that such words 
could not possibly be addressed to an earthly king, com- 
mentators have suggested other interpretations ; such as, 
* Thy throne (is a throne of), God :' but it is certain that 
no such explanation would have been thought of, had not 
a doctrinal bias intervened. The word ' God ' is applied to 
kings, and even to judges, as representatives of the divine 
power and justice — see Exod. xxi, 6; xxii, 8 (Heb.) ; 
Psalms lxxxii, 1, 6 — but never in a direct address, as in 
this and in the following verse. The person before the 
Psalmist's mind was a visible manifestation of the God- 
head ; the ideal king of whom his earthly sovereign was an 
imperfect type. The objection that the Messiah is never 
called God, or addressed as God in the Old Testament, 
begs the entire question and is untrue: See Isaiah viii, 8: 
'O lmmanuel.'" (Bible Coram.) 



82 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

John xx, 28: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, 
My Lord and my God." 

In order that we may understand these words of 
Thomas, we must keep in our minds the peculiar circum- 
stances under which they were spoken. Thomas had been 
with Christ during all of his human ministry. He was one 
of the apostles whom Christ had chosen ; he had seen 
Christ baptized; he had heard him preach; he had seen 
Christ walk upon the sea, and quiet the storm; he had 
seen him heal the sick, cast out demons, give sight to the 
blind and hearing to the deaf; he had seen him raise the 
dead. He had heard Christ teach that all men should 
honor him, even as they honored the Father ; that they 
should believe on him as they believed on the Father. 
He had heard Christ foretell his own death, burial, and 
resurrection; he had heard Christ declare that he laid 
down his life of his own accord, that he had the power to 
lay it down, and to take it again ; he had heard Christ 
promise that after his resurrection he would go and pre- 
pare heavenly mansions for them, and that while prepar- 
ing these mansions, he would send them the Holy Ghost 
as a comforter ; and, finally, that he would come in his 
glory, attended by all the holy angels, to judge the world 
and to welcome his followers into the kingdom prepared 
for them by him. All these promises presupposed him 
to be invested with supreme Divinity. 

Furthermore, they were inseparably connected with 
his resurrection from the dead. The death of Christ 
crushed Thomas with sorrow ; in his distress he could not 
believe that Christ had risen from the dead, and that 
these glorious promises would all be realized. But when 
he saw Christ standing before him, alive, and speaking to 
him, the proof of his resurrection and (under the peculiar 
circumstances that attended it) the proof of Christ's 
supreme Divinity, made so powerful an impression on the 
mind of Thomas, that " he could only utter his one deepest 



DIVINE TITLES APPLIED TO CHRIST. 83 

thought, that he had before him his Lord and his 
God." (Geikie.) 

The fact that Christ did not reprove Thomas is ample 
proof that the words of Thomas were neither thoughtless 
nor profane. His words can not be invested with any 
neutral character ; they were either profane, or else they 
were a glorious act of religious worship. They evidently 
were not profane, hence they must have been words of 
worship ; and this worship was paid directly to Christ : 
he "said unto him, My Lord and my God." If Christ 
was not supremely Divine he would have refused this 
worship as being idolatry; just as Peter did. (Acts x, 
25-26. See also Rev. xix, 10.) But Christ does not refuse 
it, but receives it with commendations; hence the words of 
Thomas were not idolatrous, and Christ is God. 

"Norton says that Thomas ' employed ' the name 
* God/ not as the proper name of the Deity, but as an 
appellative, according to a common use of it in his day." 
(Reasons, p. 300.) In support of this assertion he quotes 
several texts of Scripture. Norton denies that Christ was 
Supreme Deity, and he did not believe him to be an angel; 
hence he must mean that " God" was an "appellative," and 
that it was applied to Christ as a man "according to a 
common usage of it in his day." The incorrectness of this 
theory has been already pointed out. 

But let us examine, in this connection, John x, 34-36 : 
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I 
said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom 
the word of God came, and the Scripture can not be broken ; 
say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent 
into the world, Thou blasphemest ; because I said, I am 
the Son of God ?" These words do not prove that the title 
"God" was applied to Christ in any subordinate sense, 
nor do they prove that he was not the Supreme Deity. 
The words of the text show that, even if Christ had been 
only a man, yet the title "God" might be applied to him 



84 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

without blasphemy. Again, when we reflect that he must 
have existed before he was " sanctified," and that he was 
" sanctified" before he was " sent," it follows that he must 
have had an existence before he was "sent" into this 
world ; that before he became incarnate he was solemnly 
set apart, or sanctified, by his Father for the great work 
of redemption. The sanctification of Christ implied two 
distinct things : 1. When he was to be sent into this world 
the Father sanctified or separated him from the fellowship 
of this world, so far as the sinful nature of the world was 
concerned, so that he came into the world as one who did 
not share the character of the world. 2. The Father sanc- 
tified him, or set him apart, for the performance of a work 
in this world — a work that involved the doing of miracles, 
a work involving the attributes of omnipresence, om- 
niscience, and omnipotence, and the supreme judicial au- 
thority necessary in the forgiveness of sins. When we 
reflect on these things, then the words of Christ not only 
do not forbid, but very strongly imply, his right to appro- 
priate the title of " God" in its highest sense. 

To say that our Savior here denies making any claim 
to supreme Divinity, "is to make his conduct in this case 
trifling and ridiculous — not in an ordinary sense, but su- 
premely and contemptibly so. The obvious intent of these 
words is to reply to that part of the accusation against 
him contained in the words ' being a man/ as if he had 
said ' being a man ' is not of itself alone conclusive argu- 
ment — not decisive in a charge of blasphemy against the 
use of the divine title, for in Scripture the term is applied 
to civil rulers and religious teachers. They are called 
gods ' to whom the word of God came.' That I am a 
man is not of itself a determinative argument that I am not 
also divine. The title may be applied to a man, and the 
divinity signified by it be also predicated at the same time 
of the same man. That this is the proper exegesis of our 
Savior's reply is further evident from what follows in the 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 85 

thirty-seventh and thirty-eighth verses, when he again di- 
rectly reasserts his claim to a divine character by saying 
that, by reason of his works, it was in their power to know, 
and was obligatory on them to believe, that ' the Father 
was in him, and he in the Father.' That Jesus was un- 
derstood to claim equality with the Father, and that he 
intended to be so understood, is evident from the fact that 
when he said, ' The Father is in me, and I in him/ they, 
the Jews, ' therefore sought again to take him, but he es- 
caped out of their hand.' " (Dr. Eaymond, in Methodist 
Quarterly Review.) 

The following condensed note from Alford will sum 
up the argument on this text: "The Socinian view that 
the words ' My Lord and my God ' are merely an excla- 
mation, is refuted (1) by the fact that no such exclama- 
tions were in use among the Jews ; (2) by the elxw abrw ; 
(3) by the impossibility of referring 6 xbptoq p.ou to another 
than Jesus (see verse 13) ; (4) by the New Testament 
usage of expressing the vocative by the nominative with 
an article; (5) by the utter psychological absurdity of 
such a supposition: that one just convinced of the presence 
of him whom he deeply loved, should, instead of address- 
ing him, break out into an irrelevant cry; (6) by the 
further absurdity of supposing that, if such were the case, 
the apostle John, who, of all the sacred writers, most con- 
stantly keeps in mind the object for which he is writing, 
should have recorded anything so beside that object. ... 
This is the highest confession of faith which has yet been 
made ; and it shows that (though not yet fully) the 
meaning of the previous confessions of his being i the 
Son of God' was understood. Thus John, in the very 
close of his Gospel, iterates the testimony with which he 
begun it — to the Godhead of the Word, who became flesh — 
and by this closing confession shows how the testimony of 
Jesus to himself had gradually deepened and exalted the 
apostles' conviction from the time when they knew him 



86 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

only as 6 vtbq too 'Iuxjrjy (ch. i, 46) till now, when he is 
acknowledged as their Lord and their God." 

John xvii, 3: " And this is life eternal, that they might 
know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou 
hast sent." 

These words have often been quoted by Unitarian 
writers to prove that Jesus Christ had no claim to the title 
"the only true God." They urge that Christ here at- 
tributes that title to the Father alone, and thereby denies 
its application to himself. The text styles the Father 
"the only true God," in contradistinction of the Father 
from all heathen gods ; but it does not invalidate Christ's 
claim to the title, for he "and the Father are one." "The 
very juxtaposition of Christ here with the Father, and the 
knowledge of both being denned to be eternal life, is a 
proof by implication of the Godhead of the former. The 
knowledge of God and a creature could not be eternal life, 
and the juxtaposition of the two would be inconceivable." 
(Alford, in loco.) 

The answer of Dr. Dick is to the point : " We grant 
that our Lord would have denied his own divinity if he 
had said that the Father only is God to the exclusion of 
himself; but it is quite evident that he merely distinguishes 
his Father from other pretenders to divinity. He does 
not say, 'Thou only art the true God/ but 'Thou art the 
only true God.' When the Scripture calls the Father 
1 the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and 
the Lord of lords/ the design is, obviously, to except -not 
Jesus Christ, but the 'lords many' of the Gentiles; and, 
accordingly, Jesus Christ receives the same title in other 
places, being designated ' King of kings and Lord of 
lords/ and the ' Prince of the kings of the earth.'" (The- 
ology, p. 176.) 

Titus ii, 13 : " Looking for that blessed hope, and the glo- 
rious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ." 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 87 

" Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory 
of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." (Kev. Version.) 

Here Christ is not only called "God," but "the great 
God." It is objected that Paul elsewhere applies the title 
"God our Savior," not to Jesus Christ, but to the Father. 
While it is true that the apostle elsewhere applies the title 
to the Father, yet there is nothing in the cases where it is 
so applied that would restrict it to the Father, or forbid 
its application to the Son in the text under consideration. 

It is objected that Jesus Christ is nowhere else called 
" the great God." To this objection Bishop Horseley's an- 
swer is full and complete: "He is nowhere called the 
Word but in the writings of St. John ; he is nowhere in 
the New Testament called Emmanuel, or God with us, 
but in St. Matthew ; he is nowhere called ' that eternal 
life' but in St. John's first epistle. But single authorities 
must not be relinquished because they are single. There are 
several important facts peculiar to each of the evangelists. 
But if our Lord is nowhere else expressly called - the great 
God/ can it be said that he is called nothing like it? Is 
not ' the mighty God' in Isaiah's prophecy of the Messiah 
very like it ? Are not St. Matthew's ' God with us,' and 
St. John's ' God,' and ' that eternal life ' very like it ? 
For in what does God's greatness consist but in the great- 
ness of his attributes — his omnipotence, his omnipresence, 
his power of creating the world and sustaining it? Om- 
nipotence and omnipresence are asserted by Christ him- 
self (Matt, xxviii, 18, 20), and are ascribed to him by St. 
Paul (Phil, iii, 21), and by St. John (1 Eph. v, 14). 
The act of creating the world is attributed to him by St. 
John (i, 3), and of sustaining it by St. Paul (Colos. i, 17 ; 
Heb. i, 3). These attributes are so identified with greatness 
that the God, the Word, and that Eternal Life, who pos- 
sess them, can not be less than a great God; and he that 
does possess these attributes, and is also one and the same 
God with the Father, and is to be honored with the same 



88 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

honor as the Father, must be the great God." (Tracts, 
No. 247.) 

Ill the New Testament, Jesus Christ is called "the 
hope of Israel;" "our hope;" "the hope of glory" 
(Acts xxviii, 20 ; Coloss. i, 27 ; 1 Tim. i, 1); and in the 
text he is called " that blessed hope." We are frequently 
taught to look for "the appearance" of the Son" (Matt, 
xxiv, 30; Colos. iii, 4; 1 Tim. vi, 14; 2 Tim. iv, 1, 8; 1 
Peter v, 4; 1 John ii, 28; iii, 2); but we are never taught 
to look for the appearing of the Father, for he is invisible. 

It is objected that when Christ comes, it will be iu 
the glory of his Father. True, but "he shall come in 
his own glory" also. (Luke ix, 26.) He whose appearance 
we are taught to look for is here called "the great 
God ;" but we look for the appearance of Jesus Christ ; 
hence Jesus Christ has the title of "the great God." 

Ellicott doubts whether the interpretation of this passage 
can be settled on grammatical principles ; nevertheless he 
translates it thus: "Our great God and Savior, Jesus 
Christ." Ellicott also says: "When, however, we turn to 
exegetical considerations, and remember, (a) that knupavzia 
is a term specially and peculiarly applied to the Son, and 
never to the Father; ...(b) that the immediate 
context so especially relates to our Lord; (c) that the 
following mention of Christ's giving himself up for us, of 
his abasement, does fairly account for St. Paul's ascription 
of a title otherwise unusual, that specially and anti- 
thetically marks his glory ; (d) that fieydXou would seem 
uncalled for if applied to the Father; . . . when we 
candidly weigh all this evidence, it does indeed seem diffi- 
cult to resist the conviction that our blessed Lord is here 
said to be our piyaq Oeoq, and that this text is a direct, 
definite, and even studied declaration of the divinity of 
the Eternal Son." 

Dr. Whedon's notes on this text present a clear and 
satisfactory view of the passage: " By our present trans- 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST 89 

lation, approved by many eminent scholars, the words 
great God designate the Father; and Savior, the Son. 
But the large majority of scholars, ancient and modern, 
understand both the two appellatives, great God and 
Savior, to be applied to Jesus Christ" 

The literal rendering of the Greek words would be : 
" The appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior 
of us, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us." Now, as 
the words stand, if the two appellatives are to designate 
two different persons, some mark of separation should 
have been interposed between them. The author ought 
certainly to have taken that precaution. Our translators 
have so done by interposing "our" before "Savior;" a 
scarcely justifiable method, for "of us" may just as prop- 
erly take in both appellatives as one. Another method 
for the author would have been to interpose an article — 
" the great God and the Savior of us." Greek scholars 
claim that, by the laws of the Greek, the two appellatives 
without the interposed article designate one subject. 

But such a rule belongs not to any one language; it 
belongs to every language, especially to every language 
having a definite article. Indeed, the principle requiring 
some separation of the two appellations is based in com- 
mon sense and natural perspicuity. 

" It need not be denied that there is force in the 
opposite argument of Huther and Alford. It is certainly 
true that the appellative, ' great God/ is nowhere else 
applied to Christ. The instance stands alone. But there 
is 'over all, God' (Rom. ix, 5); ' true God' (1 John v, 
20); ' mighty God' (Isa. ix, 6); and, as we think, 
i Almighty/ in Rev. i, 8. Each one of these appellatives 
of supreme Divinity also stands alone. Alford argues that, 
in Matt, xvi, 27, the Son comes in the * glory of his 
Father.' But in Matt, xxvi, 31, the Son comes in his 
own glory. So that the glory of the present passage may 
still be the glory of one personality. There was a una- 



90 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

nimity among the early Greek writers of the Church in 
applying both appellations to Christ, and the verse was so 
used against the Arians. Alford seems to think that this 
polemic use of the passage weakens the value of their 
opinions. Perhaps it does. But is it not probable that 
this text has its share of influence in fixing the views 
of the Church before Arius appeared, so as to render 
the Church so nearly unanimous against his views? A 
proper delicacy in declining to use polemic authority is 
commendable ; but there is some danger of sacrificing 
truth even to over-magnanimity. We are obliged to say 
that the natural reading of the words favors decidedly the 
reference of both appellations to one subject, The words 
1 Jesus Christ ' tell us who is our ' great God and 
Savior.' And this exposition is confirmed by the follow- 
ing words — ' who gave himself/ etc. — indicating that the 
writer had but a single personality in his thought. We 
would then read : * The epiphany of the great God and 
Savior of us, Jesus Christ. , " 

Romans ix, 5: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as 
concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed 
forever. Amen." 

In this text Christ is called "God;" " God blessed 
forever." "Whenever the expression * according to the 
flesh ' is used in the apostolic writings, it always repre- 
sents another light, or method of consideration, under 
which the subject may be viewed, in addition to that 
which is immediately spoken of. Thus (Rom. ix, 3), 
Paul had other brethren than those who were descended 
from Abraham, viz., his fellow-Christians; there was 
another Israel (1 Cor. x, 18) than the nation so denomi- 
nated from natural descent (see Rom. ii, 28, 29 ; Gal. 
vi, 16 ; Phil, iii, 3); and Christian servants (Eph. vi, 5) 
have another Master to serve and please, than their 
earthly lords. Thus also (Acts ii, 30), there is another 
point of view under which Christ is to be considered, than 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST 91 

that which consists in his descent from David." (Roy- 
ard's, quoted from Smith's Messiah, Vol. Ill, p. 333.) 
For further proofs of this see John viii, 15 ; Rom. i, 3 ; 
iv, 1; viii, 1, 4, 5, 12 ; 1 Cor, i, 26; 2 Cor. i, 17; v, 
16; x, 2, 3; xi, 18; Gal. iv, 23, 29; v, 17; Col. iii, 
22 ; 1 Peter iv, 6. 

But if Christ "had no other nature, why should such 
a distinction as is implied by xard edpza, be here desig- 
nated ? Would a sacred writer say of David, for exam- 
ple, that he was descended from Abraham, xazdadpxal If 
this should be said, it would imply that xard nvevpa, he 
was not descended from Abraham, but from some one 
else. But here the other nature of Christ appears to be 
designated by the succeeding phrase, 6 wv lm ndvrwv 6eo<;" 
(Moses Stuart, in loco.) It is well remarked by Thomas 
Whitelaw, D. D., that "the antithesis between £? wv (of 
whom), and 6 wv (who is), represents that superior nature 
as one that had no commencement of existence." In 
perfect harmony with the foregoing the Peshito Syriac 
renders the text, "And from them was manifested 
Messiah in the flesh, who is God that is over all, whose 
are praises and blessings to the age of ages. Amen." 

It is objected that nowhere else is Christ called "God 
over all." I answer neither is he so called here. The 
apostle does not call him " God over all." The apostle 
says that he "is over all," and he calls him "God blessed 
forever." 

It is objected that to refer the words " God blessed 
forever" to Christ is to involve the text in a contradic- 
tion with 1 Cor. xv, 28, which reads thus: "And when 
all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son 
also himself be subject unto him that put all things under 
him, that God may be all in all." The contradiction 
vanishes when we consider the twofold nature of Christ. 
"Here is a human nature which was of the ' Israelites/ 
which, after being ' obedient unto death, even the death 



92 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

of the cross, was highly exalted, and received a name 
which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and in 
earth, and under the earth ; and that every tongue should 
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the 
Father.' When all these things shall be subdued, this 
human nature shall also become subject to the Divine. 
On the other hand, here is, in the same person, a Divine 
nature which existed before the incarnation, which had 
glory with the Father before the world was, and which 
shall be * all in all ' when all shall have been subdued." 
(Hare on Socinianism, pp. 84, 85.) 

In this text some person is styled "God blessed for- 
ever." This person must be either the Father or Christ. 
It would be unnatural and forced to refer these words to 
the Father. The Father is not the subject of the dis- 
course, while Christ is the immediate, nearest, and most 
natural subject; hence is the person who is styled "God 
blessed forever." 

It is objected that euXoyrjTd- (" blessed") is not used in 
the New Testament concerning Christ. As the word 
euloyrjrdq occurs in the New Testament only eight times, 
it occurs too seldom to form any argument from the usage 
oi it. But it is by no means certain that it never refers 
to Christ. It occurs in Luke i, 68 : " Blessed be the Lord 
God of Israel;" and we have already seen that the "Lord 
[Jehovah] God of Israel" was Christ in his pre-existent 
state. It occurs in Romans i, 25: "The Creator, who is 
blessed forever." But John has settled it that all things 
were made by Christ (ch. i, 3) ; Paul asserts the same 
great fact (Col. i, 16, 17). In the light of these passages, 
" the Creator, who is blessed forever," refers to Christ just 
as certainly as it does to the Father. It occurs in 2 Cor. 
xi, 31 : " The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
which is blessed for evermore." In this text, if we refer 
6 w to the nearest antecedent, then it refers to Christ. 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 93 

Those who object to its reference to "Christ" are obli- 
gated to show why we should pass by " Christ," the nearest 
noun, and refer "which" to a more remote noun for its 
antecedent. 

The words "God blessed forever" can not be referred 
to the Father without construing them as a doxology ; but 
to this arrangement there are two objections : 1. It makes 
the doxology abrupt, constrained, and forced. All of this 
is avoided by referring the words to Christ. 2. When 
ebXoyrjrdq and 6e6q or Kuptoq are used for the purpose of a 
doxology, then ebXoyrjrds invariably precedes 9e6q or KopuK, 
and Seoq invariably has the article. These two points refer 
only to the adjective ebXoyrjrds and to the nouns Oeoq and 
Koptoq when used together in a doxology. Instances may 
be found in which ebXoyrjzbq follows the subject ; but such 
texts are not doxologies, but simply declarative sentences. 
Instances may also be found in which the participle 
ivkoyrjiiivos follows Oedq in doxologies ; but when the ad- 
jective ebAoyrjTos is used with 0i6s or Kbpw<; in a doxology, 
it invariably precedes 6e6~ or Kbptoq. 

Unitarian writers quote some passages as exceptions to 
this rule, and I will examine them. Psalm lxvii, 20, 

" Kbpioq 6 0£oq ebXoyrjrds, ebXoyyrdt: Kbptoq" is quoted as 

an exception. I think that a sufficient answer to this is 
found in the fact that there are no words in the Hebrew 
answering to the first clause of the Septuagint, Kbptoq 6 
&e6<; ebXoyrjrbq ; neither is there anything answering to this 
clause in the Vulgate. The words appear to be an inter- 
polation. In the second clause ebXay^rdq precedes Kbptoq. 
The same order is preserved in the Hebrew text. 1 Kings 
x, 9; 2 Chron. ix, 8; Daniel ii, 20; Job 1, 21, are also 
quoted as exceptions to the rule ; but these texts use the 
participle ebXoyy/jJvoq, and not the adjective sbXoyrjrbq. 1. 
In each of these texts either yivocro or e'lq is used, requir- 
ing the substantive to follow it closely; hence these texts 
are not exceptions to the rule. Romans i, 25: "Who is 



94 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

blessed forever" — oq £<rrtu ebXoyrjrbq — and 2 Cor. xi, 31, 
' ' Which is blessed" — 6 &\> ebXoyqrbq — are sometimes re- 
ferred to as departures from this rule. But they are not 
doxologies; they are simple declarative sentences. 2. In 
these passages ebXoyqrbq is not joined with 0e6q y but with 
the pronoun 3 or oq. 3. In both of these passages el /it 
is present as the connecting link between the subject and 
the adjective; hence these texts do not come under the 
rule. Besides the passages already noticed, there are 
twenty-three texts in which ebXoyijrbq and 6e6q or Kbpwq 
Oeoq are joined together. These texts are Gen. ix, 26 ; xiv, 
20; xxiv, 27; 1 Sam. xxv, 32 ; 2 Sam. xviii, 28 ; 1 Kings i, 
48; v, 7; viii, 15; Psalm xvii, 47; xl, 14; lxv, 20; 
lxvii, 36 ; Ixxi, 18 ; cv, 48 ; cxliii, 1 ; Ezra vii, 27 ; 1 
Chron. xxix, 10; 2 Chron. ii, 12; vi, 4; Daniel iii, 28; 
Luke i, 68 ; 2 Cor. 1, 3 ; Eph. 1, 3 ; 1 Peter i, 3. These 
are all doxologies, and in every instance ebXoyrjrbq pre- 
cedes 0e6q y and in every instance 6e6q has the article. 
EbXoyrjrbq and Kbptoq alone are joined together in Genesis 
xxiv, 31; Exod. xviii, 10; Ruth iv, 14; 1 Sam. xxv, 39; 
1 Kings viii, 57; Psalm xxvii, 8; xxx, 28; lxvii, 20; 
lxxxviii, 51; cxviii, 12; cxxiii, 5; cxxxiv, 21 ; Zech. 
xi, 5 — thirteen instances. EbXoy^rbq is used in only one 
other doxology, 2 Sam. xxii, 47: "The Lord liveth, and 
blessed be my keeper" — euXoy^rbq 6 <pbXaq [±ou. These are 
all the instances in which ebXoyqrbq is used in doxologies, 
and in every instance it precedes its noun or subject; but 
in our text (Rom. ix, 5) it does not precede the noun ; 
hence our text is not a doxology. All of the texts in 
which ebXoyrjrbq follows its noun or subject are simple dec- 
larations ; but in our text (Rom. ix, 5) ebXoyrjrbq follows 
its noun c Xpurrbq ; hence the sentence is simply de- 
clarative. It declares Jesus Christ to be " God blessed 
forever" 

" The true inference from the context is well expressed 
by Theodoret in Cramer's ' Catena :' ' Aud then last he 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 95 

puts the greatest of their blessings, "And of whom is 
Christ as concerning the flesh." And though the addition 
"as concerning the flesh" was sufficient to imply (xapadrj- 
Xaxjai) the Deity of Christ, yet he adds, " Who is over all, 
God blessed forever — Amen," both showing the difference 
of the natures and explaining the reasonableness of his 
lamentation that though he who was God over all was of 
them according to the flesh, yet they fell away from his 
kinship/ The assertion of Christ's Divine Majesty is thus 
admirably suited to the purpose of the passage, which is 
to extol the greatness of the privileges bestowed upon 
Israel, and so unhappily forfeited. The reference to Christ 
is supported by the unanimous consent of the ante-Nicene 
Fathers. (See Irenseus L. iii, c. xvi, §3; Tertullian, 
Adv. Praxean, c. xiii, c. xv; Hippolytus, Adv. Noetum, 
vi; Origen, in hoe loco; Cyprian, Testimon. II, 6; Nova- 
tian, De Trin., c. xiii; Methodeus, Symeon et Anna, § 1.) 
In the Arian Controversies our passage is constantly used 
by Athanasius: e. g., Or. 1 c. ; Arianos, c. x, xi, xxiv. 
The same interpretation is given by Basil, Gregory of 
Nyssa, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, 
Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria (Contra Julian X), iEcu- 
menius, Theophylact." (The Bible Comm.) 

4. Son of God.— It is not denied by any believer in 
the New Testament that "the Son of God" is a common 
and rightful title of Jesus Christ. What does this title 
teach concerning Christ's nature? I propose to erluce 
the answer to this question entirely from the Old and New 
Testament Scriptures. Different parties have attributed 
the Sonship of Christ to— 1. His miraculous conception; 
2. To his Messiahship ; 3. To his resurrection ; 4. To his 
ascension and coronation. Rejecting these theories, I will 
endeavor to prove that the title "the Son of God" indi- 
cates his self-existent and eternal Deity as the second per- 
son in the eternal Godhead. Christ never referred to his 
miraculous conception, his Messiahship, his resurrection, or 



96 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

his ascension and coronation as things that made or con- 
stituted him "the Son of God." His disciples never re- 
ferred to any of these things as constituting him "the 
Son of God." The Jews never understood his claim to 
be "the Son of God" as referring to any of these things 
as the origin of the title, or as the reason for it. On the 
contrary, both his disciples and his enemies understood his 
assumption of this title as a claim to equality with the 
Eternal Father. These different views will naturally 
come up for more perfect examination in the subsequent 
discussion of the subject. I will proceed at once to ex- 
amine the passages in w r hich Jesus Christ is called "the 
Son of God." 

Psalm ii, 7 : " I will declare the decree : the Lord hath said 
unto me, Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee." 

These words are quoted by Paul and applied to Christ 
three times : Acts xiii, 33 ; Hebrews i, 5 ; v, 5. This 
places it beyond question that Christ is the person to whom 
the Lord here speaks and says, " Thou art my Son." Prof. 
Noyes, in his Notes on the text, translates the words thus : 
" Thou art my favored king." It is true that the terms 
"first-born," "son," and " sons" are sometimes applied to 
kings. Thus in Ps. lxxxii, 6, 7, kings are called " chil- 
dren of the Most High ;" Ps. lxxxix, 27, David is called 
"first-born" ("my" is not in the Hebrew). In 2 Sam. 
vii, 14, it is said of Solomon, He shall be "my son" (lit- 
erally "a son to me"). But in no instance does God ad- 
dress a mere man as "my Son;" nor is the title "the 
Son " (of God) given to any mere human ruler. The 
reference of this text to any merely human prince is for- 
bidden by several particulars : 1. We do not know of any 
temporal prince to whom these words were addressed. 2. 
No merely human ruler has ever received "the uttermost 
parts of the earth" for his "possession." 3. Never have 
the kings of the earth been exhorted to bow in universal 
submission to any temporal prince; but they are all ex- 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 97 

horted to give the Son the "kiss" of loving subjection. 
4. We are warned against putting our trust in princes : 
" Put not your trust in princes." " Cursed be the man 
that trusteth in man." (Ps. cxlvi, 3; Jer. xvii, 5.) On 
the other hand, we are exhorted to trust in "the Son." 
c< Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Hence 
this " Son" is no temporal prince. 

It is "the Son" that is "King" (verse 6; John i, 
49, 50); it is "the Son" that is to have "the heathen" 
for an " inheritance" and "the uttermost part of the 
earth " for a "possession;" it is "the Son" that is to 
"rule the nations with a rod of iron;" it is "the Son" 
that they are to "kiss," "lest he be angry;" for it is the 
" wrath " of "the Son " that they are to dread (verse 12 ; 
Kev. vi, 16, 17) ; and it is " the Son" in whom they are 
to "trust" (verse 12; Rom. ix, 33; x, 11 ; 1 Peter ii, 6). 

Romans i, 3, 4 : " Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, 
which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh ; 
and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to 
the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." 

" Concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David 
according to the flesh, who w r as declared to be the Son of 
God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the 
resurrection of the dead ; even Jesus Christ our Lord." (Re- 
vised Version.) 

Micah v, 2 : " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou 
be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall 
he come forth unto me that is t'o be ruler in Israel ; whose go- 
ings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." 

This text was applied to Christ by both the scribes 
and the Jewish laity. These quotations are recorded and 
indorsed by the evangelists. (Matt, ii, 5, 6; John vii, 
42.) This proves Christ to be the subject of the prophecy. 
His human birth is set forth in the words "out of thee 
shall he come forth unto me ;" while his eternity is estab- 
lished by the declaration "whose goings forth have been 
from of old, from everlasting." It is "Christ, the Son 

9 



98 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

of God," who is the subject of this prophecy. It was the 
Son of God who was to come forth out of Bethlehem ; it 
was the Son of God whose goings forth have been from of 
old, from everlasting. It will not be denied that the 
terms mikkedem and olam are often used to denote periods 
of limited duration; but, on the other hand, it must not 
be forgotten that they are the strongest terms which are 
used by the sacred writers to designate the eternity of 
God. Witness the following examples: " God shall hear 
and afflict them, even he that abideth of old. (Psalm lv, 
19.) In Psalm Ixviii, 33, the words "which were" do 
not belong to the text. Leave them out, and the text 
reads: "To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens 
of old." "The everlasting God." "Thou art from ever- 
lasting." "From everlasting to everlasting thou art God." 
"Thy name is from everlasting." (Gen. xxi, 33; Ps. xc, 
2; xciii, 9; Isa. xl, 28; lxiii, 16.) In Deut. xxxiii, 27, 
both terms occur: " The eternal God is thy refuge, and 
underneath are the everlasting arms." Both the Septu- 
agint and the Vulgate understood these words to teach 
the eternal existence of the Son. Their renderings are: 
" KaX szodol abrod an apffiq 1% y/iepajv alajvoq;" "Et egressus 
ejus ab initio, a diebus cetemitatis." Noyes and Burnap inter- 
pret " whose goings forth" of descent, birth, etc. This is 
doubtless correct; but it is fatal to Unitarianism, for it 
settles the eternity of Christ as " the only begotten Son 
of God." "The plural form, his * goings forth* from 
eternity, denotes eminency. To signify the perfection and 
excellency of that generation, the word for birth is ex- 
pressed plnrally ; for it is a common Hebraism to denote 
the eminency or continuation of a thing or action by the 
plural number." (Watson's Inst., Vol. I, p. 536.) "If 
we suppose that Micah purposed to state, in as energetic 
language as possible, the pre-existeuce from eternity of 
him [the Son of God] who in the fullness of time would 
be born at Bethlehem, we can not easily find out words 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 99 

in which he could have more forcibly expressed his mean- 
ing. " (Scott, in loco.) 

Mark the fact, the terms irsed by Micah to express the 
eternity of "the Son of God" are not only appropriate, 
but they are the strongest terms to express eternity that 
are to be found in the Hebrew and Greek languages. 

Matthew hi, 17: "And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, 
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 

"Ouzos Igtiv 6 oloq fiou 6 ayam]Tbs, the most discrim- 
inating mode of expression that could be employed, as if 
to separate Jesus from every other who at any time had 
received the appellation of the Son of God : This is that 
Son of mine who is the beloved. In the second clause, 
* in whom I am well pleased/ the verb, in all the three 
evangelists, is in the first aorist, iv J ebd6zr}<ra. Now, al- 
though we often render the Greek aorist by the English 
present, yet this can be done with propriety only when 
the proposition is equally true, whether it be stated in the 
present, in the past, or in the future time. And thus the 
analogy of the Greek language requires us not only to 
consider the name Son of God as applied in a peculiar 
sense to Jesus, but also to refer the expression used at his 
baptism to that intercourse which had subsisted between 
the Father and the Son before his name was announced to 
men." (Watson.) 

"The verb is put in the aorist to denote the eternal 
act of loving contemplation with which the Father regards 
the Son." (Lange, in loco.) 

John v, 17-23: "But Jesus answered them, My Father 
worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the 
more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, 
but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal 
with God. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but 
what he seeth the Father do ; for what things soever he doeth, 
these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the 



100 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he 
will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. 
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them ; 
even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father 
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the 
Son ; tfyat all men should honor the Son, even as they honor 
the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the 
Father which hath sent him." 

The Revised Version renders the last two clauses of 
verse 18 thus: "Bat also called God his own Father, 
making himself equal with God." 

We call attention to the following points in this pas- 
sage : 1. Christ calls God his "Father," "My Father" 

2. The Jews recoguized this as a claim to equality with 
God the Father, "making himself equal with God." 

3. Our Lord reaffirms his divine Sonship in the strongest 
possible terms. Note two points: First, Christ denies that 
any of his actions can be peculiar to himself, separate 
from the Father: "The Son can do nothing of himself, 
but what he seeth the Father do." Second, Christ claims 
to do everything the Father does: "What things soever 
he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." 4. The 
Father gives life, so also does the Son: "The Son 
quickeneth whom he will." 5. "All men should honor 
the Son, even as they honor the Father." We will now 
review these five points, and notice the objections made to 
them by Unitarians : 

1. Christ calls God his Father : "My Father worketh 
hitherto, and I work." The occasion of these words was 
a charge brought against Christ of having broken the 
Sabbath, because he had cured an impotent man on that 
day. The charge of Sabbath-breaking had been brought 
against Christ before this, because of cures wrought by 
him on that day. On these previous occasions Christ 
had justified himself on the ground that works of 
mercy were not a violation of the Sabbatic law. 
Qn the present occasion he does not appeal to the 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 101 

merciful character of the act; but he appeals to the fact 
that his Father and he always had worked on the Sabbath- 
day as well as on all other days. This answer involves 
two points : First, he claims for himself equality with 
the Father; second, he claims for both the Father and 
himself a superiority to, and a supremacy over, the Sabbatic 
law. He claims for himself the same supreme sovereignty 
over both men and laws that belongs to the Eternal Father. 
This equality with the Father involves supreme Divinity. 

" A material point in this language which would give 
it a blasphemous character in the view of the audience 
rests upon the particle xou, as being here as elsewhere (iii, 
31), not a simple copulative, expressing a bare accumulation 
of circumstances, but representing the Hebrew copulative 
of accordance, and thus serving to suggest, in this place, 
correspondence and combination of action. Accordingly, 
under this simple mode of expression, there is a declara- 
tion by the speaker of an identity of operation on the part 
of the Father and himself, as is more precisely detailed in 
the sequel (verses 19, 20)." (Thomas Sheldon Green's 
Critical Notes on the New Testament.) 

2. The Jews recognized this as a claim to equality 
with the Father — "making himself equal with God;" 
he had said "that God was his Father" — "his own 
Father." (Rev. Ver., izaxtpa I'dtov.) The Jews claimed 
God as their Father (see ch. viii, 41), and they would* 
not have charged Christ with blasphemy if he had not 
claimed that God was his Father in such a sense as to de- 
clare himself to be equal with God. Robinson, in his 
Lexicon, refers to Hdioq in this place, as marking with em- 
phasis the peculiar relation of God to Christ. St. John 
has used the word Idtoq in the following places, aud 
always in the sense of something peculiarly one's own : 
"In his own name," v. 43; "he came unto his own;" 
"his own brother," ch. i, 11,41; "in his own country/' 
iv, 44; "he speaketh of his own," viii, 44; " calleth his 



102 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 

own sheep;" "putteth forth his own sheep;" "whose own 
the sheep are not," x, 3, 4, 12; " having loved his own," 
xiii, 1; "the world would love his own," xv, 19; "every 
man to his own," xvi. 32 ; " took her unto his own,"xix, 27. 

"An antithesis, expressed or implied, is always in- 
volved in the use of the word I'dux;. (See Acts ii, 6 ; Eom. 
xi, 24; xiv, 4; Titus i, 12.) The Jews, we are told, took 
up stones to stone our Lord, because narlpa IStov eXeye to* 
6edv, thus making himself equal with God. Christ is in 
such a sense the Son of God, that he is of one nature 
with him, the same in substance, equal in power and 
glory." (Hodge on Kom. viii, 32.) 

They were so thoroughly persuaded that he claimed to 
be "equal with God" that they sought "to kill him." 

3. This caused Christ to reassert his Sonship in words 
still more forcible and positive. " The Son can do nothing 
of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." This is 
not a confession of a want of power, but a denial that any 
of his work is done by him alone to the exclusion of the 
Father. Inasmuch as he is one with the Father in 
essence, it is not possible that his work, authority, or 
power should be separate from that of the Father. 
Christ claims to do everything that the Father does. 
" What things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son 
likewise." In union with the Father, he is the Creator of 
all things; and, like the Father, he upholdeth " all things 
by the word of his power." Christ claims equality with 
the Father in eternity, wisdom, power, and work. 

4. In verse 21, Christ claims, as the Son, the same power 
to raise the dead and restore life that the Father has; nay, 
more than this, he emphasizes his work in raising the dead 
to life as an act of his own will : "The Son quickeneth 
whom he will." Norton interprets this of causing happi- 
ness ; but this is refuted by the fact that, the natural 
meaning of £u>oTTot£iD, is to vivify, or give life. Schleusner 
speaks as follows : " In vitamrevoco, vitam amissam restitao, 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 103 

(John v, 21); that is, * to recall life, to restore lost life.'" 
The Improved Version, and Noyes New Testament (both 
Unitarian), alike render it ' giveth life." 

5. The relation of the Son to the Father is such 
that "all men should honor the Sou, even as they honor 
the father." Tc/ida) properly means to obey, revere, 
worship ; this honor in suitable degrees may be rendered 
to men, but when rendered to God is religious worship, 
and consists in making him the object of our supreme 
affections and rendering to him our perfect obedience. 
The text demands that Christ receive the same worship 
as the Father. "It has been urged, indeed, that xaftib^ 
does not necessarily imply equality, but merely similitude ; 
but in reference to the charge that Christ had made him- 
self equal with God, it can have no other signification in 
this place." (Trollope.) Ellis in his " Half Century " 
asks: " Can we not honor the Son for what he is, even as 
we honor the Father for what he is?" If we honor the Son 
less than we do the Father, then we do not honor him as 
the text demands; for the text demands that we pay equal 
honor to both the Father and the Son. But Ellis's 
question is suicidal to Unitarianism. If we "honor the 
Son for what he is," then we must honor him as co-eter- 
nal with the Father. We must honor him as being in- 
separably connected with the Father in all of the work 
of creation, providence, and redemption. We must honor 
the Son as being, with the Father, the great fountain 
of life, and as imparting life on his own personal 
volition. Thus we must honor the Son as being co-equal 
with the Father in all of the attributes and works of 
Supreme Deity. 

John i, 14, 18: " And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt 
among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only 
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. . . . The 
only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he 
hath declared him." 



104 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

John hi, 16, 18 : " For God so loved the world, that he gave 
his only begotten Son. . . . Because he hath not believed 
in the name of the only begotten Son of God." 

1 John iv, 9 : " God sent his only begotten Son into the 
world." 

It is common for Unitarians to object that the words 
"only begotten Son" mean nothing more than "well- 
beloved Son." Pearson's answer to this is very thorough : 
" We must by no means admit the exposition of those 
who take the * only begotten' to be nothing else but the 
most beloved of all the sons ; because Isaac was called the 
only son of Abraham (Gen. xxii, 2, 12, 16), when we 
know that he had Ishmael besides ; and Solomon was said 
to be the only begotten before his mother, when David 
had other children even by the mother of Solomon. For 
the only begotten and the most beloved are not the same — 
the one having the nature of a cause in respect of the 
other, and the same can not be cause and effect to itself. 
For though it be true that the only son is the beloved 
son, yet with this order that he is therefore beloved be- 
cause the only, not therefore the only because beloved. 
Although, therefore, Christ be the only begotten and the 
beloved Son of God, yet we must not look upon these two 
attributes as synonymous, or equally significant of the same 
thing, but as one depending on the other, unigeniture be- 
ing the foundation of his singular love. Besides, Isaac was 
called the only son of Abraham for some other reason 
than because he was singularly beloved of Abraham ; for 
he was the only son of the free woman — the only son of 
the promise made to Abraham." 

Liddon says this title, "the only begotten Son of 
God," means "not merely that God has no other such 
son, but that his only begotten Son is, in virtue of this 
sonship, a partaker of that incommunicable and imperish- 
able essence which is sundered from all created life by an 
imperishable chasm." 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 105 

' 'The word juLovoye^q is used by St. Luke of the son 
of the widow of Nain (vii, 12), of the daughter of Jairus 
(viii, 42), and of the lunatic son of the man who met our 
Lord on his coming down from the mount of the trans- 
figuration (ix, 38). In Heb. xi, 17, it is applied to Isaac. 
Movoyevrjq means, in each of these cases, ' that which exists 
once only; that is, singly in its kind.' (Tholuck, Com. 
on John i, 14.) God has one Only Son who by nature 
and necessity is his Son." (Bampton Lectures, p. 233.) 

With regard to the two readings of ch. i, 18, p.ovoy£vrjs 
ulds, "only begotten Son," and ixovoyev-^q debq, " only be- 
gotten God," the following extract from Westcottand Hort's 
Greek Testament, App., p. 74, will be found to be a fair 
statement of the case : 

"Both readings, intrinsically, are free from objection. 
The text, though startling at first, simply combines in a 
single phrase the two attributes of the Logos marked be- 
fore (Oebq, v. i; fjMvoysvijq, v. 14). Its sense is, ' One who 
was both dedq and fiovoyevqc;. 9 The substitution of the 
familiar phrase 6 fiovoyevys oloq for the unique ixovoyevrjq 
Oebq would be obvious, and fxovoyevriq, by its own primary 
meaning, directly suggested oloq. The converse substitu- 
tion is inexplicable by any ordinary motive likely to affect 
transcribers. There is no evidence that the reading had 
any controversial interest in ancient times; and the ab- 
sence of the article from the more important documents is 
fatal to the idea that 6q \_6ebq~\ was an accidental substi- 
tution for Tq [ufo^]." 

Movoyevrjs Oedq is accepted by Tregelles, Westcott 
and Hort, and Whedon. 

John x, 30 : "I and my Father are one." 

In verse 28 our Lord declares that none shall ever 
pluck his disciples out of his hand. He fortifies this dec- 
laration by (1) setting forth the Father's omnipotence: 
"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; 



106 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

and no man is able to pluck them out of my father's 
Land ;" (2) by the declaration " I and my Father are one." 
This declaration is void of all force or meaning unless it 
asserts a oneness of nature with the Father. To assert 
that he was in harmony with the counsels and designs of 
the Father, that in these matters he was one with the 
Father, would prove nothing concerning his ability to 
save his followers; but if he and the " Father are one " in 
essence, then he can certainly save his followers; for the 
infinite knowledge, wisdom, and power of supreme Deity 
are his. 

John xvi, 15 : " All things that the Father hath are 
mine." 

Christ's words are without limit or restriction, and we 
have no right to put any on them. We are compelled to 
take them in their broadest sweep. All that belongs to 
the Father belongs also to the Son. The Father hath 
eternity; the Son must have it also. The Father has 
omnipotence ; it belongs to the Son also. The Father has 
all knowledge; so also has the Son. "'AH things that 
the Father hath are mine.' If Christ had not been equal 
to God, could he have said this without blasphemy ?" 
(Adam Clarke.) 

" 'Be not surprised that I said, He shall receive of 
mine ; for all the treasures of the Father's wisdom, power, 
and goodness, truth, justice, mercy, and grace are mine; 
yea, in me dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily.' 
Could any mere creature say this?" (Benson.) 

Hebrews i, 15: " God, who at sundry times and in divers 
manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 
hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he 
hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the 
worlds : who being the brightness of his glory, and the express 
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of 
his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down 
on the right hand of the Majesty on high ; being made so much 
better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 107 

more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels 
said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
thee ? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be 
tome a Son?" 

" God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the 
prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the 
end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he ap- 
pointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the 
worlds; who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very 
image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word 
of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down 
on the right hand of the Majesty on high; having become by 
so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more 
excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said 
he at any time, 

" Thou art my Son, 

" This day have I begotten thee ? 
"and again, 

"I will be to him a Father, 

"And he shall be to me a Son?" (Revised Version.) 

The author of this epistle begins it by incidentally al- 
luding to Christ's sonship. He sets forth the fact — 1. 
That he owns the universe: " Appointed heir of all 
things." 2. That the Son is the Creator of the universe: 
" By whom he made the worlds." 3. He is " the bright- 
ness of the Father's glory." 4. He is " the express image 
of the Father's substance." 5. He is the preserver of all 
things, " upholding all things by the word of his power." 
6. He has co-equal royalty with the Father: "Sat down 
on the right hand of the Majesty on high." 7. By inher- 
itance he is superior to all angels: "He hath by inherit- 
ance obtained a more excellent name than they." 8. The 
Father has declared him to be his Son: "Thou art my 
Son." 

I will review each of these items separately : 
1. The Son of God owns the universe: "Appointed 
heir of all things." Norton objects that if Christ be the 
Supreme God he could not be appointed by anybody. This 



108 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

objection rests upon the assumption that there is but one 
person in the Godhead. The assumption being unproved, 
the objection is worthless. Since the incarnation of Christ 
in his dual nature, he may be appointed " heir of all things" 
without in any way compromising the truth of his supreme 
Divinity. Norton limits the words "all things" to the 
Jewish and Christian dispensations. Burnap limits them 
to "this physical world." It is a sufficient answer that 
no such limitation is to be found in either the text or the 
context. The neuter nav, with the article, is often used in 
the New Testament to designate " all created things, vis- 
ible and invisible." (Schleusner.) (See Rom. xi, 36 ; 1 
Cor. viii, 6 ; Eph. iii, 9; Col. i, 16, 17.) Liddell and Scott 
define to xav, by "the universe;" Robinson defines rd rdvra, 
"all things, the universe, the whole creation;" the Vulgate 
renders it by "universal Thayer's Lexicon renders r.dvra, 
"in an absolute sense, all things collectively, the totality 
of created things, the universe of things." 

2. That the Son is the Creator of the universe: "By 
whom also he made the worlds." It is cheerfully ad- 
mitted that the text presents Christ as the Father's 
instrument in creation. As such, he must be either 
a created- or an uncreated instrument; if created, it 
could not be true what the evangelist saith that "all 
things were made by him," since himself, the principal 
thing, could not be made by himself. We are satisfied 
that the statement of the evangelist is infallibly true; hence 
our Lord was not a created instrument, but an uncreated 
one. As an uncreated instrument he was God, and so 
acted in his own omnipotence. Christ is the uncreated, 
omnipotent instrument of the Eternal Father in the crea- 
tion of the universe. 

3. Christ, the Son of God, is " the brightness of" 
the Father's " glory." Norton and Burnap translate 
dnabXaafia rr t q do^rjq by " the reflection of his glory." 
Robinson says that this is ' ' against both the etymology 



DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 109 

and the icsus loquendi" I would amend Norton's trans- 
lation by the Kevised Version, thus : Christ is not the 
" reflection " of the Father's glory, but "the effulgence 
of his glory." A reflector is that which throws back the 
light that is cast upon it by some other body. Christ in 
union with the Father and the Holy Spirit is the fountain 
of the divine glory, and he is the effulgence of that glory. 
Robinson's Greek Lexicon defines dr,a()Yaap.a thus: "The 
effulgence of God's glory; i. e. , in whom, as proceeding 
from the Father, the divine Majesty is manifested." 
" And this (which, ns Delitzsch remarks, is represented 
by the <p&s £x <pwro<; of the Church) seems to have been 
universally the sense among the ancients, no trace what- 
ever being found of the meaning * reflection.' Nor would 
the idea be apposite here. The Son of God is, in this his 
essential majesty, the expression, and the sole expression, 
of the divine light, not as in his incarnation, its reflec- 
tion.'" (Alford, in loco.') Alexander Roberts, D. D., in 
his " Companion to the Revised Version of the New Tes- 
tament," p. 134, writes: "Three words are in common 
translated 'brightness' in the Authorized Version, which, 
nevertheless, admit of being easily distinguished. One of 
the expressions occurs in that striking passage, Heb. i, 3, 
in which we read of Christ, ' Who being the brightness of 
his glory,' etc. Here the word might be mistakenly sup- 
posed to mean a reflected splendor, but the true meaning is 
a radiance which is flashed forth ; and, therefore, the 
translation ' effulgence ' has been adopted in the Revised 
Version." 

4. He is "the express image of" the Father's "sub- 
stance." The word 6n6<jra(nq rendered "person" in verse 
3, primarily means anything placed under a building or 
superstructure, as a foundation or support. In course of 
time it acquired the tropical meaning of substance or 
essence. Bloomfield says that it signifies, as the commenta- 
tors are agreed, not " person" (a sense of the word unknown 



110 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

until after the Arian controversy, in the fourth century), 
but " substance, or essense ; i. e. being ;" a sense supported 
by the authority of the Peshito Syriac and Vulgate Ver- 
sions. Creroer, in his Biblico-Theological Lexicon, quotes 
our text and says: "Aofa denotes the revealed glory, 
i)-6(jTa<ns the divine essence underlying the revelation." 
Christ is here asserted to be the express image of the 
Father's substance. Xapaxrijp means a print, image, or 
likeness. The imprint of Caesar upon the national coin was 
intended to be Caesar's image or likeness. But as the im- 
print was inanimate it could only be the image or likeness 
of Caesar's face or body. Christ is " the express image of" 
the Father. He is a living " image of the invisible God." 
Thayer's Lexicon defines bTz6$Ta<n<z, " the substantial 
quality, nature of any person or thing." Robinson de- 
fines i)7z6(7ra(nq, "tropically, hypostasis (Latin, substantia); 
i. e., what really exists under any appearance, substance, 
reality, essence, being (Heb. i, 3) : . . . The ex- 
press image or counterpart of God's essence or being, of 
God himself." 

5. Being of the same divine essence with the Father, 
he is rightly set forth as " upholding all things by the 
w r ord of his power." Unitarians make vigorous effort to 
limit the force of the words " all things," but without suc- 
cess. The neuter rd 7zdvra has naturally a universal 
sweep, and the context gives the words a range limited 
only by the bounds of creation. The "all things" 
which he "upholds" must be co-extensive with "the 
worlds" which he "made." 

Unitarians and some Trinitarians interpret the word 
<pipcov by " controlling." That the notion of control is in- 
cluded here there can be no doubt, but it is only inci- 
dental to the main idea. The primary notion of <pipu> is 
to "bear up," "support," "uphold." It carries the 
notion of control only so far as is necessary to the uphold- 
ing. The Son of God not only created " all things/ but 



OBJECTION TO ETERNAL SONSHIP. Ill 

he continues them in existence and life. The upholding 
of the universe is ' ' by the word of his power. " Thayer 
paraphrases the sentence thus: " Of God, the Son, the 
preserver of the uni verse." (Vide Lexicon.) The pro- 
noun "his" finds its proper antecedent in the "Son" of 
verse 2. 

6. The Son has co-equal royalty with the Father. He 
"sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." 
Burnap says that "the second person of the Trinity 
could not sit down at the right hand of the Majesty on 
high." Possibly Burnap found it easier to deny the truth 
of the apostle's statement than to evade the force of the 
text. Christ having always been one with the Father, 
having shared the divine glory with the Father before 
the world was, having divested himself of that glory 
when he became incarnate, and having now returned to 
heaven in his incarnate state, he is now reinvested with 
his former glory and majesty. 

7. The Son of God has by inheritance a more excel- 
lent name than the angels. This name " Son of God" 
has been eternally his; it was his before he became 
incarnate, and when he returns to heaven in his incar- 
nate state it is his by his own right. The humanity 
of Christ in its union with the Divinity does not bar his 
claim to his ancient titles and glory. Being the Son of 
God, he is of the same substance with the Father; he is 
the manifestation of the Father to the world ; he sits on 
the right hand of the Father, receiving the worship that 
is due only to Eternal, Uncreate, Supreme Deity. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 

It is objected "that Adam is called 'the son of God,' 
Luke iii, 38 ; and that believers are called ' the sons of 
God ; but this does not prove that they were possessed by 
supreme Divinity ; how then does this title prove Christ 
to be God?" To this I answer: 



112 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

t. Our Lord is the only person whose divine Son- 
ship was revealed by the Old Testament writers. (Psalms 
ii, 7; Acts xiii, 33; Hebrews i, 5; v, 5.) 

2. Our Lord is the only person of whom the Almighty 
Father publicly said: "This is my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased;" "hear ye him." (Matt, iii, 
17; xvii, 5.) 

3. Our Lord is the only person whom inspired author- 
ity declares to be "the only begotten of the Father:" 
"The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the 
Father." (John i, 14, 18.) 

4. Our Lord is the only person who, by his resurrec- 
tion from the dead, in conformity with his own prediction 
of his resurrection, was declared to be " the Son of God." 
(Rom. i, 3.) 

5. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only person who has 
a perfect knowledge of the Father (Luke x, 22) ; this 
proves his co-equality with the omniscient Father. 

6. Our Lord is the only person who, when speaking of 
the Father's omnipotence, could truthfully say: "I and 
the Father are one." (John x, 30.) 

7. Our Lord is the only person who could truthfully 
say that the Father hath given all judgment into his 
hands, that all men may honor him "even as they honor 
the Father." (John v, 22, 23.) He could have no claim 
to co-equal honor with the Father if he was not divine. 

8. If our Lord were not of the same substance, power, 
and eternity with the Father, he could not truthfully have 
said: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." 
(John xiv, 9.) 

9. Christians are the children of God by adoption 
(John i, 12), but Christ never was an alien; he is the 
child and heir by natural right. (Raymond's Theology, 
Vol. I, p. 416.) Adam was "the son of God" by crea- 
tion; our Lord can not be the Son of God by creation, 
for he is himself the Creator of all things. (John i, 3.) 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST. 113 

" All attempts ... to make out that the Sonship 
claimed by our Lord is nothing more than the child-like 
relation which belongs to all believers (against which com- 
pare John i, 12, with iv, 14 and 18), are plainly refuted 
by the observation that he always makes a clear distinc- 
tion, in speaking to his disciples, between ' your Father 
and my Father, your God and my God;' that he never 
places himself, so to speak, on the same line with them — 
never speaks of our Father (Matt, vi, 8, 32 ; xviii, 10 ; 
xvi, 17; xxvi, 53; John xx, 17); the first words of the 
Lord's Prayer are not in point (Matt, vi, 9), for Christ is 
there teaching his disciples to pray, and does not include 
himself with them." (Christlieb's Mod. Doubt and Christ. 
Belief, 246.) 

" The phrase 'sons of God' is elsewhere used fre- 
quently to denote the saints, the children of God, or men 
eminent for rank and power (compare Gen. vi, 2, 4; Job 
i, 6 ; Hosea i, 10 ; John i, 12 ; Rom. viii, 14, 19 ; Phil, 
ii, 15; 1 John iii, 1), and once to denote angels (Job 
xxxviii, 7) ; but the appellation, ' the Son of God' is not 
appropriated in the Scriptures to any one but the Mes- 
siah. . . . The true sense, therefore, according to the 
Hebrew usage, and according to the proper meaning of 
the term, is that he sustained a relation to God which 
could be compared only with that which a son among men 
sustains to his father; and that the term, as thus used, 
fairly implies an equality in nature with God himself. It 
is such a term as would not be applied to a mere man ; 
it is such as is not applied to the angels (Heb. i, 5) ; and 
therefore it must imply a nature superior to either." 
(Condensed from Barnes on Psalm ii, 7.) 

DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ATTRIBUTED TO CHRIST. 

God is known to us by his attributes. Some of his 
attributes belong also to his creatures, such as goodness, 
wisdom, truth, justice, etc. ; that is, some of his creatures, 

10 



114 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

through creation and redemption, possess these attributes 
to a limited degree. But there are other attributes of 
Deity, such as eternity, omnipresence, omniscieuce, and 
omnipotence ; these attributes are not possessed by any 
created or finite being. Nor is it possible that any finite 
being should possess them ; they belong wholly and alone 
to God. Now, if we find the attributes of eternity, om- 
nipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence clearly and un- 
mistakably applied to Christ, then Christ must be God. 

Eternity is an attribute of the Godhead ascribed to 
Christ. When we say that Jesus Christ is eternal, we do 
not mean simply that Christ will never cease to exist. 
Men, angels, and demons will never cease to exist, but 
they are not eternal. But Jesus Christ is eternal; he 
never began to exist, but always did exist, and he always 
will exist. Without beginning or end, he is eternal. 

Isaiah rx, 6 : " The everlasting Father." 

It is objected that to apply this text to Christ would 
be to confound him with the Father. To this the remarks 
of Barnes would seem to be a sufficient answer: " The 
term Father is not applied to the Messiah here with any 
reference to the distinction in the divine nature ; for that 
word is uniformly in the Scriptures applied to the first , not 
to the second person in the Trinity. But it is used in refer- 
ence to duration as a Hebraism, involving high poetic 
beauty. He is not merely represented as everlasting, but 
he is introduced by a strong figure, as even the FatJier of 
eternity, as if even everlasting duration owed itself to his 
paternity. There could not be a more emphatic declara- 
tion of strict and proper eternity." 

Eevelation i, 17, 18: "I am the first and the last: I am he 
that liveth, and was dead, and, behold, I am alive for evermore. 
Amen." " Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the Liv- 
ing One," etc. (Ee vised Version.) 

Revelation xxii, 13: "lam Alpha and Omega, the begin- 
ning and the end, the first and the last." 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST. 115 

These texts contain three distinct presentations of the 
truth concerning Christ; they harmonize with each other, 
and mutually interpret each other. These three presenta- 
tions are: "Alpha and Omega/' "the beginning and the 
ending," aud "the first and the last." An exposition of 
these phrases may be found in any ordinary commentary 
on the Apocalypse. The last of the three presentations is 
to be found in the words " the first and the last." This is 
an Old Testament title of Jehovah, and is found in Isaiah 
xli, 4: "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the gen- 
erations from the beginning? I, the Lord, the first, and 
with the last; I am he." Brown gives the following com- 
ment on this text: "Who hath disposed of all the gener- 
ations of mankind ? have not I, the eternal God ?" "I 
am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no 
God." (Isaiah xliv, 6.) "I am he; I am the first, I also 
am the last." (Isaiah xlviii, 12.) There can be no doubt 
that these words express a title of Jehovah, and that by 
them he means to declare his eternity. But Christ claims 
the same title for himself, thus claiming to be eternal. 
Thayer's Lexicon defines this phrase "the eternal One." 
It has already been proven that Jesus Christ was the Je- 
hovah of the Old Testament; this proves that Christ, who 
here speaks to John, is the Jehovah who spoke to and 
through Isaiah. In both instances Christ claims to be 
eternal. 

Hebrews xiii, 8 : " Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to- 
day, and forever." 

The testimony of this text to the eternity of Christ is 
plain and direct, and would need no comment were it not 
for the efforts of Unitarian writers to neutralize and de- 
stroy its force. Dr. Worcester objects that the text " has 
no verb in it, and therefore, considered by itself, contains 
no affirmation." (Bible News, p. 216.) It is a well- 
known fact that an ellipsis of the neuter verb is a com- 
mon thing with the sacred writers, and if we reject all 



116 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

texts that are marked by such an ellipsis, we will be com- 
pelled to reject some of the most important portions of 
Scripture. Note the following: "God is faithful." (1 
Cor. i, 9.) "For all have not faith." (2 Thess. hi, 2.) 
"Unto the pure all things are pure." (Titus i, 15.) 
"Great is Diana of the Ephesians." (Acts xix, 28, 
34.) "Blessed is the man who eudureth temptation." 
(James i, 12.) "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, 
invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever 
and ever. Amen." (1 Tim. i, 17.) There is no verb in 
the original Greek of these texts. Are they, therefore, 
meaningless? "The omission of the copula in the third 
person singular of the indicative is very common in all 
parts of the New Testament. In fact it may be said, par- 
ticularly in the Pauline epistles, to be preferred often 
throughout entire paragraphs." (Buttman's Greek Gram- 
mar, p. 136.) 

Dr. Worcester further objects that by the words Jesus 
Christ " we may understand not merely his person, but his 
interest and glory." Norton argues that the term " Christ 
someti7iies designates the religion of Christ." If we were 
to admit these pleas, it would still be impossible to have 
either the interest, glory, or religion of Christ separate 
from his existence; hence, if his interest, glory, and re- 
ligion be eternal, then his personal existence must be 
eternal also. While we cheerfully admit that the term 
"Christ" is sometimes used to designate the doctrine of 
Christ, we may safely challenge Unitarianism to produce 
a single text in which the full name Jesus Christ is used 
to designate anything else than the person of Christ. The 
subject of the text is Jesus Christ, and it declares his 
eternity. 

"If Christ were only the exalted creature, the super- 
angelic being, the delegated God whom the Arians de- 
clare him to be, he would, of all virtuous beings, be the 
most changeable ; because, with his superior faculties and 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST. 117 

advantages, he would advance more rapidly in knowledge 
and virtue, and in power also ; for the increase of knowl- 
edge is in itself the increase of power. Such a being can 
not possibly, therefore, be the Jesus Christ who is ' the 
same yesterday, to-day, and forever/ " 

Hebkews i, 10-12 : " And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast 
laid the foundation of the earth ; and the heavens are the 
works of thine hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest : 
and they all shall w T ax old as doth a garment ; and as a vesture 
shalt thou fold them np, and they shall be changed: but thou 
art the same, and thy years shall not fail." 

The testimony of this text to the eternity of the per- 
son spoken of in it is so pointed and unanswerable, that 
Unitarians, in order to save their system, have been com- 
pelled to deny its reference to Christ. The mere fact that 
verses 10-12 do not begin with the same words as verses 
5, 6, 8, is no proof that they do not refer to the same per- 
son. On the contrary, a close inspection of verses 8-12 
will show that they all belong to the same general intro- 
duction, 'But unto the Son/ of verse 8. In verse 8 the 
apostle asserts that certain addresses were made to the Son. 
Verses 8, 9, contain one of these addresses, and verses 10-12 
contain another one of them. The conjunction "and," in 
the first clause of verse 10, is not in the Hebrew nor in 
the Septuagint. The apostle adds it, in order to connect 
this fresh quotation with the preceding one. The last time 
the word "God" occurs in the preceding verses it refers 
to the Father, who is spoken of in the third person, " Thy 
God hath anointed thee;" but in the preceding part of 
the quotation God the Son is spoken to in the second per- 
son, "Thou Lord," thus clearly showing that the address 
of the eighth and ninth verses and the address of the tenth, 
eleventh, and twelfth verses are both made to the Son. In 
verse 8 the address is plainly made to the Son, and there 
is no evidence that the apostle makes any change in the 
person addressed. 



118 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 

The following from Barnes sets the matter in a clear 
light: "This is connected with verse 8. ' Unto the Son 
he saith [verse 8], Thy throne/ etc. ; and (verse 10) 'he 
also saith, Thou Lord/ etc. That this is the meaning is 
apparent, because (1) the object of the whole quotation is 
to show the exalted character of the Son of God, and (2) 
an address here to Jehovah would be wholly irrelevant. 
Why, in an argument designed to prove that the Son of 
God was superior to the angels, should the writer break 
out in an address to Jehovah in view of the fact that he 
had laid the foundations of the world, and that he him- 
self would continue to live when the heavens should be 
rolled up and pass away ? Such is not the manner of Paul 
or of any other good writer, and it is clear that the writer 
here designed to adduce this as applicable to the Messiah. 
Whatever difficulties there may be about the principles on 
which it is done, and the reason why this passage was se- 
lected for the purpose, there can be no doubt about the 
design of the writer- He meant to be understood as ap- 
plying it to the Messiah beyond all question, or the quo- 
tation is wholly irrelevant." 

Emlyn argues that the apostle is endeavoring to show 
the durability of the Son's kingdom by proving the immu- 
tability of the Father who gave it to him. But the point 
the apostle is laboring to prove is not the durability of 
Christ's kingdom, but Christ's superiority to angels, and 
he does this by applying to Christ, as belonging to him, 
the psalmist's declaration of the Divine eternity. "To 
introduce a passage here about God's immutability or sta- 
bility, must appear very abrupt and not pertinent; because 
the angels, also, in their order and degree, reap the ben- 
efit of God's stability and immutability. And the ques- 
tion was not about the duration and continuance, but 
about the sublimity and excellency of, ' the respective 
natures and dignities ' of the angels and of the Son of 
God." (See Simpson's Deity of Jesus, p. 268.) 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST. 119 

I know of no better summary of the evidence fur- 
nished by this text than that given by Richard Watson : 
' 'These words are quoted from Psalm cii, which all ac- 
knowledge to be a lofty description of the eternity of 
God. They are here applied to Christ, and of him they 
affirm, that he was before the material universe ; that it 
was created by him ; that he has absolute power over it ; 
that he shall destroy it ; that he shall do this with infinite 
ease, as one who folds up a vesture ; and that, amid the 
decays and changes of material things, he remains the 
same. The immutability here ascribed to Christ is not, 
however, that of a created spirit,, which will remain when 
the material universe is destroyed ; for then there would 
be nothing proper to Christ in the text — nothing but in 
which angels and men participate with him — and the words 
would be deprived of all meaning. This immutability 
and duration are peculiar, and a contrast is implied be- 
tween his existence and that of all created things. They 
are dependent and he is independent, and his necessary 
and therefore eternal existence must follow." 

1 John i, 2 : " That which was from the beginning, which we 
have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have 
looked upon and our hands have handled, of the Word of 
life; (for the life was manifested and we have seen it, and 
bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was 
with the Father and was manifested unto us.)" 

The testimony of this passage to the eternity of our 
Lord Jesus Christ is very plain and decisive. 1. The 
subject of the text is the ''Word of life;" but Logos, or 
"Word," is one of the titles that John, in his Gospel (ch. 
i, 1, 14), applies to Christ. 2. The subject of this text is 
called "the life," but this title is claimed by Christ as 
properly his own. (John xi, 25; xiv, 6.) This " Word of 
life" is said to have been "from the beginning," but a 
similar statement is made concerning Christ. (John i, 1, 4.) 
The subject of this passage is one whom John had " heard, 



120 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

seen, looked upon, and handled." All this points to 
Christ, with whom John had been an associate daring 
the three years of Christ's earthly ministry. These words, 
"our hands have handled," rivet the text to Christ; for 
after his resurrection from the dead he had invited- the 
disciples to handle him. (Luke xxiv, 39 ; John xx, 20, 
27.) 5. This "life" is said to have been "manifested," 
but it was Christ " who was manifested in the flesh. ,, 
(John i, 14; 1 Tim. iii, 16. 6.) "The life" spoken of in 
this text is said to have been "with the Father;" this 
could not be said of any non-personal matter, but it was 
true of Christ. (John i, 1, 2; xvii, 5.) The foregoing 
items prove that the subject of the text is Christ, and 
John calls him "that eternal life," thus investing Christ 
with the attribute of eternity — not merely everlasting 
duration in the future eternity of the past as well as of 
the future ; for it was the eternity of one who was with 
the Father before the world was. "In him was life." 
"Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eter- 
nal life." "I give uuto them eternal life." (John i, 4; 
vi, 54; x, 28.) Robinson's Lexicon: " Meton. for the 
Author and Giver of eternal life. (John v, 26; xi, 25, 
xiv, 6; Col. iii, 4; 1 John i, 2 ; v, 20.)" 

Omnipresence. — In attributing omnipresence to Christ, 
we mean to say that he is possessed of the same attri- 
bute of omnipresence which the sacred Scriptures attrib- 
ute to God the Father, wdien they say of him : " The 
heaven and heaven of heavens can not contain thee." 
"Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall 
I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, 
thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, 
thou art there; if I take the wings of the morning 
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall 
thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me." 
"The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my foot- 
stool." "Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST. 121 

a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that 
I shall not see him ? saith the Lord." " Do not I fill heaven 
and earth? saith the Lord." " There are diversities of 
operations, but it is the same God which worketh all iu all." 
"Him that filleth all in all." (1 Kings viii, 27; Psalms 
cxxxix, 7-10 ; lxvi, 1 ; Jer. xxiii, 23, 24 ; 1 Cor. xii, 6 ; Ephe- 
sians i, 23.) We mean to say that our Lord Jesus Christ is 
possessed of the same attribute of omnipresence that is so 
forcibly and sublimely set forth iu the preceding Scriptures. 

The first proof that we will offer of our Lord's ubiq- 
uity is drawn from the fact that he healed afflicted per- 
sons, who, at the time of their being healed, were distant 
from his bodily or human presence. Thus he healed the 
nobleman's son (John iv, 46-53); the centurion's servant 
(Matt, viii, 5-13); and the daughter of the Syrophoenician 
woman (Matt, xv, 22-28.) In these cases notice certain 
facts : 1. Christ was absent from each and all of these 
subjects at the time they were healed. (John iv, 46, 47 ; 
Matt, viii, 5, 6; Mark vii, 30.) 2. Each of these persons 
was healed at the very moment when Jesus, at a dis- 
tance from them, pronounced them healed. (John iv*, 52, 
53; Matt, viii, 13; xv, 28.) 3. The evangelists do not 
intimate the intervention of any other power or ageney 
than that of Christ's by which these persons were healed, 
and in the case of the centurion's servant our Lord 
claims the healing act as his own. (Matt, viii, 28.) It is 
impossible to account for Christ healing these distant suf- 
ferers without believing him to be omnipresent. 

Ephesians i, 22, 23: " And hath put all things under his 
feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the 
Church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth 
all in all." 

Norton has paraphrased this passage thus: " The body 
of "Christ the perfectness of him who is made completely 
perfect in all things." To this paraphrase there are two 
objections: 1. "Perfectness" and " perfect" are not com- 

11 



122 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

mon or ordinary meanings of nkypw/ia, and nAypow; in 
fact, they rarely have these meanings in the New Testa- 
ment. The ordinary meaning of these terms is " fullness," 
and "fulfill," or " fill;" and it is not right to depart from 
these meanings without showing good and sufficient rea- 
sons. 2. It is not right to render izX^pooixlvoo in the pass- 
ive, and then construe it with rd izdvra h -nasi, thus 
violating the established rules of Greek grammar. Winer 
renders it in the middle voice — "The fullness of him 
who filleth all, where the middle signification is not en- 
tirely lost: frwm himself, with himself he filleth all." " He 
filleth all persons, both angels and men ; he filleth all 
places, heaven with glory, earth with grace ; . . . 
he filleth all ordinances — prayer with pjevalency, preach- 
ing with efficacy, etc.; he filleth all relations — fathers 
with paternal affections, mothers with maternal bowels ; he 
fills all conditions — riches with thankfulness, poverty with 
contentment." (Burkitt.) None but an omnipresent Sav- 
ior can meet the terms of this text. 

Colossians i, 17: "By him all things consist.'' 
"In him all things consist." (Revised Version.) 

There is no question as to whom these words refer ; all 
agreeing that they were written concerning Jesus Christ, 
the Son of God. No being could create, preside over, 
sustain, and be the author of all blessings to the whole 
Church on earth and to the Church triumphant, unless he 
was omnipresent. 

Alford speaks of "all things" (rd ndvra), thus: " The 
universe (thus only can we give the force of the Greek 
singular with the collective neuter plural, which it is im- 
portant here to preserve, as * all things' may be thought of 
individually, not collectively)." 

The word "all" may be restricted to men, or angels, 
or any one class of beings or things; but the phrase "all 
things," unless limited by the context, is universal in its 
application. In the present case, the context, so far from 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST. 123 

limiting the application of the words "all things," gives 
them an unlimited reference to every thing that is either 
"visible" or "invisible." These words, "visible or invis- 
ible," include everything in the universe ; hence rd izdvra 
here properly means "all things" — material or spiritual, 
earthly or heavenly, of this world or of any and all other 
worlds. It will not be denied that rd ndvra, in verse 17, has 
the same meaning that it has in verse 16 ; and Winer says 
of it that it "signifies the (existing) all, the sum of all 
things collectively." Robinson's Lexicon defines the phrase, 
"the universe, the whole creation," and quotes the text as 
proof. Thayer's Lexicon defines it, "In an absolute sense, 
all things collectively, the totality of created things, the 
universe of things." 

Matthew xviii, 20 : " For where two or three are gathered 
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." 

"How futile is the Socinian comment in the New Ver- 
sion, — This promise is to be ' limited to the apostolic age!' 
But were that granted, what would the concession avail? 
In the apostolic age the disciples met in the name of their 
Lord many times in the week, and in innumerable parts 
of the world at the same time — in Judea, Asia Minor, 
Europe, etc. He, therefore, who could be ' in the midst of 
them' whenever and wherever they assembled, must be 
omnipresent. But they add, 'by a spiritual presence, a 
faculty of knowing things in places where he was not 
present' — ' a gift/ they say, ' given to the apostles occasion- 
ally,' and refer to 1 Cor. v, 3. No such gift is, however, 
claimed by the apostle in that passage, who knew the affair 
in the Church of Corinth, not by any such faculty or rev- 
elation, but by 'report' (verse 1). Nor does he say that 
he was present with them, but judged 'as though he were 
present.' If, indeed, any such gift were occasionally given 
to the apostles, it would be, not a ' spiritual preseuce,' as 
the New Version has it, but a figurative presence, No 



124 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

such figurative meaning is, however, hinted at in the text 
before us, which is as literal a declaration of Christ's pres- 
ence everywhere with his worshipers as that similar promise 
made by Jehovah to the Israelites : ' In all places where I 
record my name I will come to thee, and I will bless 
thee.'" (Watson.) 

Matthew xxviii, 20 : " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto 
the end of the world. Amen." 

The evidence furnished by this text in proof of the 
omnipresence of Christ is very similar to that furnished 
by the text last under consideration. The Unitarian ob- 
jection that aimvoq does not mean the physical world, but 
the age or dispensation they were then in, is of no force ; 
for even if it were granted that the promise w T as limited 
to the age they were then living in, it would not mate- 
rially weaken the testimony of the text to Christ's omni- 
presence. Before that age terminated, the disciples of 
Christ were to be found in Asia, Africa, and Europe ; 
hence none but an omnipresent being could be present 
with each and every one of them in these different parts 
of the world. We must either deny that Christ kept this 
promise or believe in his omnipresence. 

Unitarians sometimes assert that this promise is sub- 
stantially the same as that found in Mark xvi, 17, 18 : 
" And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my 
name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak with 
new tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and if they 
drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall 
lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." This 
promise is in perfect harmony with the promise of Christ 
to be with his disciples alway ; but it is not identical with 
it, nor is it substantially the same. It is a promise of a 
protecting providence— of just such a providence as could 
not be carried out except by an omnipresent being. And 
th§ (declaration of verse 20, " They went forth and preached 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST. 125 

everywhere, the Lord working with them," is conclusive 
proof that the promise was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, an 
omnipresent Savior. 

But it is not true that the words "the end of the 
world " refer to the end of the existing Jewish dispensa- 
tion. They properly designate the end of the world's 
history— the end of time. The phrase <n>vr(Xeia too aiwvoq, 
" the end of the world," is not to be found in the Septu- 
agint. It occurs four times in the New Testament : Matt, 
xiii, 39, 40, 49 ; xxiv, 3. The plural cruvTeXeta twv aldtvwv, 
"end of the world," or "end of the ages" (Rev. Version), 
is found in Heb. ix, 26, and doubtless refers to the patri- 
archal and Mosaic dispensations. Zovriketa too ai&voq, in 
Matt, xiii, 39, 40, 49, designates a time when " the Son 
of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather 
out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which 
do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire." 
It refers to a time when "the righteous" shall "shine 
forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." (See 
verses 41, 42, 43, 49, 50.) No one can truthfully affirm 
that any such events have ever occurred in the world's 
history. "The end of the world," when these things shall 
take place, is still future. Matt, xxiv, 3: "Tell us, when 
shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy 
coming, and of the end of the world?" The disciples 
asked our Lord about two different things : 1. " When shall 
these things be?" 2. " What shall be the sign of thy com- 
ing, and of the end of the world ?" The question, " When 
shall these things be?" was based upon the prophecy of 
verse 2: "There shall not be left here one stone upon 
another that shall not be thrown down." This prophecy 
and the question, "When shall these things be?" unques- 
tionably refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. " These 
things" were to take place during the history of that gen- 
eration. (Matt, xxiii, 36; xxiv, 34.) 

That "the end of the world" was not the same thins 



126 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

as the destruction of Jerusalem, is evident from the fol- 
lowing considerations (see Whedon, in loco) : 

1. They were warned against confounding ''these 
things" with "the end of the world." "All these things 
must come to pass, but the end is not yet." (Matt, xxiv, 
6; Luke xxi, 9.) 

2. Commotions and persecutions would precede the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, but " the end of the world" would 
be preceded by its evangelization. (Verses 7-14.) 

3. The coming of the "false Christs" previous to the 
destruction of Jerusalem is contrasted with the coming 
of the true Christ at " the end of the world." (Verses 
23-27.) 

4. The prolixity of the slaughter and captivity con- 
sequent upon the destruction of Jerusalem, is contrasted 
with the suddenness of "the end of the world." (Luke 
xi, 24; Matt, xxiv, 28-31.) 

5. The coming of the destruction of Jerusalem could 
be easily calculated, but the time of " the end of the world " 
was concealed from men. (Verses 32, 41.) 

There can be no reasonable doubt that when the apos- 
tles asked about "the end of the world," they were ask- 
ing about the end of time. I have now examined every 
place in the New Testament in which this phrase occurs in 
the singular, and in every instance it designates the end 
of time. Our Lord promised to be with the disciples until 
the end of time. This interpretation of his words is given 
by the great mass of Bible scholars. 

Cremer, in his Biblico-Theological Lexicon, p. 52, says: 
"The (Tovrileta al&voq is still to come, in so far as the ex- 
isting course of the world has not yet found its final ter- 
mination." 

Thayer's Lexicon renders the phrase " the end of the 
world" thus: "The end, or rather consummation, of the 
age preceding Christ's return, with which will be connected 
the resurrection of the dead, the last judgment, the demo- 



OMINISCIENCE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 127 

lition of this world, and its restoration to a more excellent 
condition. (Matt, xiii, 39, sq. 49; xxiv, 3; xxviii, 20.)" 

That the words " the end of the world" are to be un- 
derstood in their popular sense of "the end of time," 
"appears, first, from the clause, * Lo, I am with you al- 
way' — izdaaq rd<; ytiipaq, i at all times;' secondly, because 
spiritual presence stands, by an evidently implied antith- 
esis, opposed to bodily absence ; thirdly, because that pres- 
ence of Christ was as necessary to his disciples after the 
destruction of Jerusalem as till that period." (Watson's 
Inst., Vol. I, p. 581.) 

This farewell promise of Christ to his disciples furnishes 
unanswerable evidence of his omnipresence. As he had 
been with Joseph, Moses, and Joshua (Gen. xxxix, 2; 
Exod. iii, 12; Josh, i, 5), so he promised to be with all 
of his disciples in all places and in all times — an omnipresent 
Savior. 

Omniscience is another attribute of the Godhead which 
is ascribed to Christ. 

Over and above all of the varied degrees of knowledge 
that belongs to finite beings, there are three kinds of knowl- 
edge that belong peculiarly to God : 1. A perfect knowl- 
edge of the thoughts and intents of the heart; 2. A 
perfect knowledge of the future ; 3. A perfect knowledge 
of the nature of Deity. Our Lord's possession of each of 
these three kinds of knowledge will be discussed separately. 

I. "A perfect knowledge of the thoughts and intents of 
the heart." (Watson.) "I, the Lord, search the heart; 
I try the reins." (Jer. xvii, 10.) " Thou, even thou 
only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men." 
(1 Kings viii, 39.) Christ claimed, possessed, and exer- 
cised this perfect knowledge of the thoughts and intents 
of the hearts of men. It might be objected that prophets 
and apostles occasionally exercised this knowledge, and yet 
made no claim to Divinity. There were instances when 
God gave to his servants a knowledge of some of the 



128 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

thoughts of men's hearts ; as in the case of Elisha and 
Gehazi (2 Kings v, 25-27); also Peter with Ananias 
and Sapphira (Acts v, 10). But this communicated knowl- 
edge will not warrant us in supposing that the receiver 
of it possessed the power of seeing the heart. They 
did not acquire their knowledge by seeing the heart; 
they received it from God. It must be remembered, also, 
that it was only occasionally that men were possessed of 
such knowledge, while it was a constant thing with Christ. 
(See Matt, ix, 4; xii, 25; Mark ii, 8; Luke v, 22; vi, 8; 
ix, 47; John vi, 61; xxi, 17.) Again, the prophets and 
apostles, when they had this knowledge, attributed it to 
a direct revelation from God, while Christ had it as "an 
attribute or original faculty" of his nature. Three of the 
passages just referred to (Matt, ix, 4; Mark ii, 8; Luke 
v, 22) relate to our Lord healing the paralytic who was 
let down through the roof. In these narratives note the 
following points: 1. The paralytic was brought to Christ 
to be healed. 2. Christ said to the paralytic, "Son, thy 
sins be forgiven thee." 3. The scribes were offended at 
this speech and "said within themselves," "reasoning in 
their hearts." Mark the fact, what they said or reasoned 
was not orally, it was "within themselves," "in their 
hearts." (Matt, ix, 3; Mark ii, 6; Luke v, 22.) 4. Jesus 
saw this " reasoning in their hearts." This knowledge 
of the thoughts of their hearts was not communicated to 
him from abroad ; it did not come to him from any exter- 
nal source; it originated in his own spirit. Matthew 
speaks of him as "knowing their thoughts." Mark (verse 
8) speaks of him as " perceiving in his spirit that they so 
reasoned within themselves." Luke v, 22, says that "Jesus 
perceived their thoughts." Jesus saw their hearts — a 
sight that belongs only to omniscient Divinity. 

John ii, 24, 25: "But Jesus did not commit himself unto 
them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any 
should testify of man ; for he knew what was in man." 



OMNISCIENCE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 129 

In this text two declarations are made concerning 
Christ, and each assertion is followed by the statement of 
a fact on which the declaration rests, thus: 1. " Jesus 
did not commit [trust, iniartuev\ himself to them," for 
" he knew all men ;" 2. " He needed not that any should 
testify of man," for "he knew what was in man." 

Our Lord's knowledge of men did not come from what 
others told him ; he did not need their testimony, for he 
had a direct and unerring knowledge of everything that is 
in every man. Solomon in his dedicatory prayer (1 Kings 
viii, 39) said to Jehovah God: "Thou only knowest the 
hearts of all the children of men." John affirms that 
Jesus had this knowledge, hence Jesus must be the omnis- 
cient God. 

Revelation ii, 23 : "I am he which searcheth the reins 
and hearts." 

These are the words of Jesus the Son of God. There 
is no other person mentioned or alluded to in the context 
to whom they can be referred but to our Lord ; he is the 
speaker, and proclaims himself to be the one who "search- 
eth the reins and hearts." Unitarians object that this 
does not prove our Lord to be omniscient, for Christians 
are said to "know all things." (1 John ii, 20.) But it 
is evident that John did not mean to declare the omnis- 
cience of these disciples. There were some things that they 
did not know; they surely did not know all history, 
literature, science, and art. The context limits the phrase 
"all things" to those things that were necessary to their 
preservation from these seducers, and to their eternal salva- 
tion. The same statement, substantially, is made in verse 
27, and is in harmony with our Lord's promises to his 
disciples: "It is given unto you to know the mysteries of 
the kingdom of heaven." (Matt, xiii, 11.) And, " He 
will guide you into all truth." (John xvi, 13.) They 
did not have the power to " search the reins and hearts." 



130 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

The Old Testament writers frequently declare God's 
power to read the secrets of the heart. "The Lord 
searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imagina- 
tions of the thoughts." (1 Chron. xxviii, 9.) " Thou triest 
the heart." (1 Chron. xxix, 17.) "The righteous God 
trieth the hearts and reins." (Psalms vii, 9,) "O Lord 
of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins 
and the heart." (Jer. xi, 20.) " O Lord of hosts, that 
triest the righteous and the heart." (Jer. xx, 12.) This 
omniscience of the heart belongs to God only : "The heart 
is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked ; who 
can know it? I, the Lord, search the heart; I try the 
reins." (Jer. xvii, 9, 10.) There are two points in this 
text to be noticed : 1. The denial that any one but God 
can read the heart. 2. The declaration made by God 
himself, that he does know the heart: " I, the Lord, search 
the heart." In Solomon's dedicatory prayer we have the 
explicit assertion, " Thou only knowest the hearts of the 
children of men." (2 Chron. vi, 30.) It is thus evident 
that this power to " search the heart" belongs only to the 
omniscient God; but our Lord claims it as his, and that, 
too, in nearly the identical words used by Jehovah in 
Jeremiah xvii, 9, 10. This compels the conclusion that 
Jesus Christ is omniscient. 

John xxi, 17: "He saith unto him the third time, Simon, 
son of Jonas, lovest thou me ? Peter was grieved because he 
said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me ? And he said 
unto him, Lord thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I 
love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.' ' 

"Peter, in his reply to Christ, does not refer to the 
knowledge of doctrines or actions, but to the knowledge 
of the heart. Jesus had thrice asked Peter whether he 
loved him. The repetition of the question, after it had 
been twice answered in the affirmative, seemed to imply a 
doubt of his sincerity, and he said: 'Lord, thou knowest 
all things; thou knowest that I love thee.' Why dost 



OMNISCIENCE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 131 

thou put the question so often? There is nothing con- 
cealed from thee, not even the secrets of the heart. Thou 
needest not to be told that my affection to thee is genu- 
ine. This is plainly to ascribe omniscience to Christ, who, 
so far from correcting the apostle — as he would have done 
if he had deified him, being only a man — that he gave a 
virtual sanction to what he had said, by subjoining: ' Feed 
my sheep. ' " (John Dick.) 

II. Besides the knowledge of the thoughts and intents 
of the heart, our Lord also possessed a knowledge of fu- 
ture events. This is a "quality so peculiar to Deity that 
we find the true God distinguishing himself from all the 
false divinities of the heathen by this circumstance alone. 
'To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and com- 
pare me, that we may be like V ' I am God, and there is 
none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and 
from ancient times the things that are not yet done, say- 
ing, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleas- 
ure/ (Isaiah xlvi, 5, 9, 10.)" (Watson.) What evidence 
does the New Testament furnish that our Lord Jesus Christ 
possessed this knowledge of the future ? 

John vi, 64 : " But there are some of you that believe not. 
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that be- 
lieved not, and who should betray him. ,, 

Four things are proven by this text: 1. "Jesus knew" 
"who they were that believed not." 2. He knew this 
from the "beginning." 3. "He knew who should betray 
him." 4. He knew this from the beginning. 

He knew from the beginning who the unbelievers were, 
and who the traitor was. There is no evidence that this 
knowledge of the future was a mere judgment based on 
existing circumstances, or that it came to him by a special 
inspiration; it is mentioned here as a knowledge that was 
natural to Christ. "'From the beginning 1 — whether we 
understand it from the beginning of the world, . . . 
or from the beginning of their attending him as it is 



132 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

taken, Luke i, 2 — lie had a certain prescience of the in- 
ward dispositions of men's hearts and their succeeding 
sentiments ; he foreknew the treacherous heart of Judas in 
the midst of his splendid profession, and discerned his res- 
olution in the root and his thought in the confused chaos 
of his natural corruption; he knew how it would spring 
up before it did spring up, before Judas had any distinct 
and fundamental conception of it himself, or before there 
was any actual preparation to a resolve." (Charnock.) 
This text stands as a simple but sublime declaration of our 
Savior's prescience of future events. 

Matthew xvii, 27 : " Notwithstanding, lest we should of- 
fend them, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the 
fish that first cometh up ; and when thou hast opened his mouth, 
thou shalt find a piece of money ; that take, and give unto them 
for me and thee." 

There is no evading the miraculous character of this 
act of our Lord. Waiving all consideration of the display 
of power, let the attention be directed to the knowledge 
that is here displayed by Christ : 1. Jesus knew that 
there was a Grecian stater in the Galilean sea. 2. He 
knew that a certain fish would have it in his mouth. 
3. He knew that when Peter would cast his hook into the 
sea that this fish, with the stater in his mouth, would bite 
the hook, and would be drawn up out of the sea. 4. He 
knew that this fish would be the first fish that Peter would 
catch. Christ here displays a knowledge of the future. 

Mark xiv, 30: " And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say 
unto thee, that this day, even in this night, before the cock 
crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." 

In this text notice these points: 1. Christ foretells 
Peter's denial of him. 2. He specifies the number of 
times Peter would deny him — "thou shalt deny me thrice." 
3. The time of the denial was specified — "before the cock 
crow twice." 4. For the exact fulfillment of this predic- 
tion, see verses 66-72. 5. It was a very unlikely time— 



OMNISCIENCE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 133 

a time when men are usually in bed and asleep — but tbe 
literal fulfillment of our Lord's words proves bis om- 
niscience. 

Mark xiv, 12-16: " And tbe first day of unleavened bread, 
when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, 
Where wilt thou that we go and prepare, that thou mayest eat 
the passover? And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and 
saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you 
a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And whereso- 
ever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The 
Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the 
passover with my disciples? And he will shew you a large 
upper room, furnished and prepared : there make ready for us. 
And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found 
as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover." 

Our Lord's answer to his disciples has some points to 
which we ask special attention. He told them that when 
they entered the city they would meet "a man bearing a 
pitcher of water." This was apparently a very ordinary 
and insignificant matter; but none but he, who has num- 
bered the hairs of the head, could foresee the fact that the 
man with the pitcher would certainly meet the disciples. 
The chances of their missing each other were as a hundred 
to one that they would meet, but he knew that they 
would meet. They were to follow this man until he en- 
tered a house; they were to ask the goodman of the house 
for a room in which the passover could be kept. The 
man of the house would show them a "room;" it would 
be an "upper-room;" it would be a "large room;" it 
would be a room already "furnished and prepared." Our 
Lord knew that the master of this house would be willing 
to furnish him a room. He foreknew that a man con- 
nected with this house would meet the disciples, and that 
this man would be bearing a pitcher of water. He fore- 
knew the location of the room, its size, and its furniture ; 
thus proving that all things, present and future, are known 
to the Lord Jesus Christ. 



134 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

III. Besides a knowledge of the thoughts and intents 
of the heart, and a knowledge of the future, Jesus Christ 
possessed a perfect knowledge of the Divine nature. The 
impossibility of a finite being having a perfect knowledge 
of God is very forcibly set forth by the sacred writers. 
"Lo, these are parts of his ways; but how little a portion 
is heard of him? but the thunder of his power, who can 
understand?" (Job xxvi, 14.) "O Lord, how great are 
thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep." (Psalm 
xcii, 5.) "O, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom 
and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judg- 
ments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath 
known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his coun- 
selor?" (Kom. xi, 33, 34.) " Who hath known the 
mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?" (1 Cor. 
ii, 16.) "Dwelling in the light which no man can ap- 
proach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see." 
(1 Tim. vi, 16.) It is evident from the foregoing pas- 
sages that Deity can be perfectly known only by Deity. 
We propose to show that our Lord Jesus Christ had a per- 
fect knowledge of the nature and thoughts of Deity; 
hence must be omniscient. 

Matthew xi, 27: "No man knoweth the Son, but the 
Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, 
and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." 

Luke x, 22: "No man knoweth who the Son is, but the 
Father ; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom 
the Son will reveal him." 

Unitarians interpret our Lord's words as declaring 
"that no one but the Father can fully comprehend the 
object and extent of the Son's commission, and no one 
but the Son comprehends the counsels and designs of the 
Father with respect to the instruction and reformation of 
mankind." (Improved Version.) "Christ's own w T ords 
express something mutual and equal in the degree of 
knowledge which the Father had of the Son, and the Son 



OMNISCIENCE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 135 

of the Father; but in" the Unitarian ' ' explanation there 
is nothing either equal or mutual ; for it amounts to no 
more than this: As the Son knows the Father's" " coun- 
sels and designs," "so the Father knows his own" "coun- 
sels and designs." " For, to know the extent of the Son's" 
" commission," " is merely to know his own " " counsels and 
designs;" "that is, to know for what purpose he himself 
had sent his Son into the world." (Altered from Horse- 
ley's Tracts, pp. 449, 450.) 

In these texts we note the following points : 1. The 
declaration "No man knoweth the Son." 2. The excep- 
tion to this declaration, "but the Father." The Father, 
and he only, has a full knowledge of QEmyvtoGxei) the Son. 
3. " Neither knoweth any man the Father." 4. The ex- 
ception to this declaration, "save the Son, and he to 
whomsoever the Son will reveal him." The Son knows 
the Father fully ('E7ciyvd><rxet) 9 and he to whom the Son 
reveals the Father will also know the Father. 5. The Son 
knows the Father and we may know the Father ; but our 
knowledge of the Father and the Son's knowledge of the 
Father differ infinitely. Our knowledge of the Father is 
mediate. It comes to us through the Son, and is limited 
by our capability to receive it, while the Son's knowledge 
of the Father is immediate and infinite. We can not 
know the Father except the Son reveal him to us ; but 
the Son's knowledge of the Father is underived, perfect, 
and eternal. It is such a knowledge as proves our Lord 
to be omniscient. 

John i, 18 : "No man hath seen God at any time : the only 
begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de- 
clared him." 

Winer, in his New Testament Grammar, p. 415, says 
these words are "probably to be referred to the primary 
(external and local) import — who is (laid) upon (unto) 
the bosom" But such a rendering of these words robs 
them of all sense. God is not a physical being, with a 



136 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

material bosom. The word " laid" is not in the text, nor 
is there any word answering thereto. The words of the 
text were spoken by John to account for our Lord's power 
to reveal God to us; if we give them a literal physical 
interpretation, then we fail to explain that power. In 
the text there is asserted of our Lord Jesus Christ such 
an intimate and perfect knowledge of the Father's nature, 
thoughts, counsels, and purposes as could be possessed only 
by one whose nature and knowledge are as infinite as the 
Father's ; that is, by one who was also infinite and om- 
niscient. 

Alford says the text "must not be understood as re- 
ferring to the custom of reclining, h tu> xoXtzcd, as in ch. 
xiii, 23 ; for by this explanation confusion is introduced 
into the imagery, and the real depth of the truth hidden. 
The expression signifies, as Chrysostom observes, loyyiveta 
xai hoz-qq ovciaq, and is derived from the fond and intimate 
union of children and parents. The present participle, as 
in ch. iii, 13, is used to signify essential truth, without any 
particular regard to time." 

" More is meant than that the man Jesus Christ had 
a greater degree of knowledge than other men. The words 
evidently import that he had knowledge of a totally differ- 
ent kind, arising from immediate vision and perpetual 
communion. No prophet or apostle is ever said to have 
enjoyed such means of knowledge even in an inferior de- 
gree. None of them had seen God ; none of them was in 
his bosom." (Dick, p. 174.) 

Schleusner quotes the text in his Lexicon, and says: 
" Qui eandem cum Deo habet naturam et majestatem, seu, qui 
cum Deo est eonjunctissimus" — Who is one and the same 
with God, having the nature and majesty, or who is in the 
closest union with God." 

Because of this highest unity with the Father, and of 
his most perfect knowledge of the Father, Christ's omnis- 
cience is placed beyond doubt. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 137 

Objections to the Omniscience of Christ. 

The following passages are quoted by Unitarians aa 
objections to the doctrine of our Lord's omniscience : 

Mark xiii, 32 : " But of that day and that hour knoweth 
no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the 
Son, but the Father." 

Matthew xxiv, 36 : " But of that day and hour knoweth 
no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." 

^A number of passages explicitly declare that Christ 
knows all things. There is one which declares that the Sou 
did not know ' the day and the hour' of judgment. Again, 
there is a passage which certainly implies that even this 
period was known to Christ; for St. Paul (1 Tim. vi, 14), 
speaking of the ' appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ ' as 
the universal judge, immediately adds, ' which in his own 
times — xaipols Idiots — shall show who is the blessed and 
only Potentate/ etc. The day of judgment is here called 
* his own times' (Revised Version), or ' his own seasons,' 
which, in its obvious sense, means the season he has him- 
self fixed, since a certain manifestation of himself is in its 
fullness reserved by him to that period. As ' the times 
and the seasons,' also, are said in another place to be in 
the Father's * own power,' so, by an equivalent phrase, 
they are said to be in the power of the Son, because they 
are * his own times.' Doubtless, then, he knew 'the day 
and the hour of judgment.' Now, certainly, no such 
glaring and direct contradiction can exist in the Word of 
Truth as that our Lord should know the day of judgment, 
and, at the same time and in the same sense, not know it. 
Either, therefore, the passage in Mark must admit of an 
interpretation which will make it consistent with other 
passages which clearly affirm our Lord's knowledge of all 
things, and, consequently, of this great day, or these pas- 
sages must submit to such an interpretation as will bring 
them into accordance with that in Mark. It can not, how- 

12 



138 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

ever, be in the nature of things that texts which clearly 
predicate an infinite knowledge should be interpreted to 
mean a finite and partial knowledge, and this attempt 
would only establish a contradiction between the text and 
the comment. Their interpretation is imperative upon us; 
but the text in Mark is capable of an interpretation 
which involves no contradiction or absurdity whatever, 
and which makes it accord with the rest of the Scripture 
testimony on this subject." 

These passages belong to a class of texts that can be 
explained only by a reference to the twofold nature of 
Christ, thus: " Ye both know me and ye know whence I 
am" (John vii, 28), compared with "no man knoweth 
the Son, but the Father" (Matt, xi, 27). Again, "Ye 
have the poor always with you ; but me ye have not al- 
ways" (Matt, xxvi, 11), compared w T ith "Lo, I am with 
you alway" (Matt, xxviii, 20). Again, "I lay down my 
life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from 
me, but I lay it down of myself." (John x, 17, 18.) 
Compare this with "The Son of man shall be betrayed 
into the hands of men : and they shall kijl him." (Matt, 
xvii, 22, 23.) If we deny the dual nature of Christ, then 
the foregoing Scriptures are hopeless contradictions ; but 
in the light of the two natures they harmonize with each 
other naturally and easily. Thus Jesus Christ as a man 
was known by men. As a man he is not present with his 
disciples ; as a man he was killed by men ; as a man he 
knew not the day and the hour of the judgment. On the 
other hand, as God "no man knoweth" him; as God he 
is "with" his disciples "always;" as God no man took 
his life — he "laid it down himself;" as God he had ap- 
pointed his own times — '/.aipols idiotq (1 Tim. vi, 15) — for 
the judgment; hence must know both the day and the 
hour. "As man he was no more omniscient than omni- 
present ; but as God he knows all the circumstances of it." 
(Wesley.) The correctness of this conclusion is sustained 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 139 

by the fact that, as the Son of God, he "is in the bosom 
of the Father ;" that he " knoweth the Father," hence 
knows what the Father knows; that he "knoweth all 
things." 

Dr. Farley, in his "Unitarianism Defined," quotes Mac- 
knight to prove that Christ here speaks of himself as the 
Son of God. To this I offer Dr. Whedon's answer : " It 
has, indeed, been argued that, inasmuch as the Son is 
here named after the angels in the order of ascending cli- 
max, we must understand it to be the Son of God, and 
not the Son of man. The result of this would be to 
prove that our Lord, in his highest personality, was lim- 
ited in knowledge. But those who thus argue forget that 
even as Son of man he was superior to the angels. They 
are his ministers. It is as the Son of man he judges the 
world, attended by his holy angels. Surely it is a thou- 
sand times more wonderful that the judgment-day should 
be unknown to the judge than to his mere attendant offi- 
cers. And this expression * neither the Son' stands in 
striking coincidence with our Lord's expression, 'It is not 
for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father 
hath put in his own power.' (Acts i, 7.)" 

That the words "neither the Son" refer to Christ as 
the Son of man is put beyond all dispute by the context 
both in Matthew and Mark. In the discourse from which 
this text is quoted, Christ does not speak of himself as 
"the Son of God," but always as "the Son of man." 
(See Matt, xxiv, 27, 30, 37, 39; xxv, 13, 31; Mark xiii, 
26 ; Luke xxi, 36.) 

Objections to the omniscience of Christ are sometimes 
based upon John vii, 16; viii, 28; xii, 49 and xiv, 24; 
but these objections derive all their strength from the ig- 
noring of the twofold nature of Christ. As declarations 
concerning the humanity of Christ, they do not and can 
not clash with the doctrine of his omniscience as God. 



140 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Omnipotence is also ascribed in the Scriptures to 
Christ. 

Omnipotence is an attribute possessed only by supreme 
Divinity. Whatever degree of power may belong to a 
creature, omnipotence belongs to God only. The sacred 
Scriptures ascribe omnipotence to our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Matthew xxviii, 18 : " And Jesus came and spake unto 
them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in 
earth." 

"It is justly argued by Whitby and Mede that as in 
his Divine nature our Lord doubtless had this power 
from all eternity, so if this declaration be supposed to be 
made with respect to his Divine nature, it must be under- 
stood of him as being God of gods, deriving his being 
and essence by eternal generation from the Father. But 
he was also perfect man as well as perfect God; and, 
therefore, the words may have been spoken in reference 
to his state of humiliation now about to terminate in 
glory at the right hand of God, before which time he 
could not exercise the power, though he had before re- 
ceived it. In short, such unlimited power could neither 
be received nor exercised by any being less than God. 
Christ, therefore, is God." (Bloomfield.) Unitarians con- 
tend that "all" is often used in a limited sense, and they 
refer to Matt, xx, 23, "But to sit on my right hand, and 
on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to 
them for whom it is prepared of my Father," for proof 
that our Lord did not possess infinite power. But Matt. 
xx, 23, does not furnish any proof that Christ's power was 
limited. The words "it shall be given to them" are not 
in the Greek text, and should be left out. "The con- 
junction aAAa, when, as in this place, it is not followed by 
the verb, but by a noun or pronoun, is equivalent with 
d fii), except Compare Matt, xvii, 8, with Mark ix, 8." 
(Trollope.) The text should read " is not mine to give, 
except for whom it is prepared of my Father." Our 



OMNIPOTENCE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 141 

Lord " applies to the glory of heaven what his disciples 
were so stupid as to understand of the glories of earth ; 
but he does not deny that these are his to give. They are 
his to give in the strictest propriety, but both as God and 
as the Son of man. (See John x, 28 ; Luke xxii, 29.) He 
only asserts that he gives them to none but those for whom 
they were originally prepared." (Benson.) 

" Our Lord does not deny his power to give, but only 
declares who they are who shall receive this honor. His 
answer, far from intimating anything of that kind, con- 
cludes as strongly against it as a negative argument can 
be supposed to do. Thus the meaning is, "I can not arbi- 
trarily give happiness, but must bestow it on those alone 
for whom, in reward of holiness and obedience, it is pre- 
pared, according to God's just decrees.'" (Horseley's Ser- 
mons, Vol. V., p. 281.) 

The word i^ouaia, here rendered " power," combines the 
two ideas right and might. The following text will furnish 
both illustration and proof of the union of these two ideas, 
(right and might), ksoutriav : " He gave them power against 
unclean spirits, to cast them out" (Matt, x, 1); that is, 
both the authority and the might to cast them out. ".I 
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it 
again." (John x, 18.) No man but Christ had the right 
to relinquish life; and when life has been relinquished, no 
man but Christ had the power to resume it again: "I 
have power to crucify thee, and power to release thee." 
(John xix, 10.) Pilate certainly claimed both the authority 
and the ability to crucify Jesus. "Hath not the potter 
power over the clay?" (Romans ix, 21.) Paul's argument 
would have been a failure if the potter had been lacking 
in either the right or the might to fashion the clay. 

It is not supposable that the Father would confer a 
right upon Christ without a corresponding might; if our 
Lord's right is unlimited, then the accompanying might 
must be unlimited also. Unitarians seek to avoid this 



142 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

conclusion by denying that the authority of Christ was 
universal. They interpret the words "in heaven and in 
earth" as meaning " the Jewish and Gentile world." That 
the formula " the heavens and the earth " may be used, in 
a few instances (Haggai ii, 6, 21 ; 2 Peter iii, 7), to des- 
ignate divisions of the political world, is not denied; 
nevertheless, such is not the usual import of these words. 
"Heaven and earth" are a Biblical formula, designating 
the universe with its inhabitants. This will be abun- 
dantly demonstrated by an examination of some of the 
passages in which these words occur. 

For convenience' sake it will be well to classify these 
passages. The first class of these texts to be noticed is 
that in which these words are used to indicate the extent 
of creation: "God created the heaven and the earth;" 
"The heavens and the earth were finished, and all the 
host of them;" " The Lord made the heaven and earth, 
the sea, and all that in them is." (Gen. i, 1 ; ii, 1 ; Ex- 
odus xx, 11. See also 2 Kings xix, 15; Psalm cxv, 15; 
cxxi, 2 ; cxxiv, 8 ; cxxxiv, 3 ; cxlvi, 6 ; Isaiah xxxvii, 
6; Jeremiah xxxii, 17; Acts xiv, 15; Col. i, 16; Rev. 
x, 6; xiv, 7.) A careful reading of the preceding texts 
can not fail to prove that the words "heaven and earth" 
mean the entire universe. Second class: Those texts in 
which Jesus declares "that heaven and earth shall pass 
away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt, v, 18 ; 
xxiv, 35; Mark xiii, 31; Luke xvi, 17; xxi, 33.) If 
these words do not here signify the universe, then our 
Lord's words lose much if not all of their meaning; for 
he evidently intends to represent his words as having a 
permanence that is more enduring than the universe. 
Third class: TVhen God would vindicate his justice he 
calls "heaven and earth" to bear record. (Deut. iv, 26; 
xxx, 19 ; xxxii, 1; Isaiah i, 2.) These are unquestionably 
appeals to the inhabited universe. Fourth class : In the 
same manner the sacred writers call upon " heaven and 



OMNIPOTENCE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 143 

earth" (the universe) to praise God. (Ps. lxix, 34; xcvi, 
11; Jer. K, 48.) Fifth class: The pure intelligences in the 
kingdom of Christ are called " the whole family in heaven 
and earth." (Eph. i, 10; iii, 15; Col. i, 20.) They con- 
stitute the universal family of Christ. Sixth class : That 
these words (heaven and earth) designate the universe is 
evident from the fact that they are employed when the 
omnipresence of God is declared. God is said to fill 
heaven and earth. (Jer. xxiii, 24. See also Psalm cxxxv, 
6.) Seventh class: When the universal dominion of God 
the Father is to be proclaimed, he is called " the possessor 
of heaven and earth ; the Lord of heaven and earth." (Gen. 
xiv, 19, 22 ; Matt, xi, 25 ; Luke x, 21 ; Acts xvii, 24.) 
No one questions the fact that the foregoing texts teach 
the universal dominion of God. In perfect harmony with 
these texts our Lord's words, " All power is given unto me 
in heaven and in earth," teach the omnipotence of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. 

Unitarians object "that omnipotence can not be com- 
municated from one being to another, but belongs to one 
being alone." This would be true concerning beings who 
were separate from each other; but Christ, though distinct 
from the Father, is not separate from him, but is "in the 
bosom of the Father." What would be impossible with 
separate beings, is not only possible but actual in the unity 
of the Trinity. The omnipotent Father has given "all 
power" (omnipotence) to his eternal Son. 

John v, 19: " Then answered Jesus and said unto them, 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of him- 
self, but what he seeth the Father do : for what things soever 
he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. " 

John v, 26: "For as the Father hath life in himself; so 
hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." 

This "is a most strongly marked distinction between 
himself and all creatures whatever. He has ' life in him- 
self/ and he has it ' as the Father' has it ; that is, perfectly 



144 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

and infinitely, which sufficiently demonstrates that he is of 
the same essence or he could not have this communion of 
properties with the Father. The life is, indeed, said to be 
'given' but this communication from the Father makes no 
difference in the argument. Whether the 'life'* means 
the same original and independent life, which at once en- 
titles the Deity to the appellations ' the liviug God " and 
4 the Father of spirits/ or the bestowing of eternal life 
upon all believers, it amounts to the same thing. The 
'life' which is thus bestowed upon believers, the contin- 
uance and perfect blessedness of existence, is from Christ 
as its fountain, and he has it as the Father himself hath 
it. By his eternal generation it was derived from the 
Father to him, and he possesses it equally with the Father. 
By the appointment of his Father he is made the source 
of eternal life to believers, as having that life in him- 
self to bestow and to supply forever." (Watson.) 

DIVINE ACTS ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 

Creation of All Things. — For proof of this, see John 
i, 3; Col. i, 15-17; Heb. i, 2. 

" It has been said that the work of creation w T as per- 
formed by God alone, without any assistant or partner. 
For example, Isaiah xliv, 24: ' I am Jehovah that maketh 
all things ; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone ; that 
spreadeth forth the earth by myself/ Christ, therefore, 
as Unitarians reason, can not be the Creator ; and those 
texts which declare that all thiugs were made by him must 
be understood in a metaphorical sense. 

"Reply: If the Bible does in some places explicitly 
declare that all thiugs were created by Jesus Christ, and 
in other places that (rod is the sole creator, the natural 
conclusion is that Christ is God. ' The creator of all cre- 
ated beings can not be himself a creature, and he who is 
not a creature must be God.' If Unitarians still insist 
that a lower sense must be put upon the texts which would 



DIVINE ACTS ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 145 

declare that all things were created by Christ, and urge 
that the texts, taken in that lower sense, afford no proof 
that Christ is God, I still ask for what reason they give 
this lower sense? And if they say that these texts must 
be taken in a lower sense because they ascribe creation to 
one who is not God, I reply again that this would plainly 
be a petitio principii, which sound logic never admits. 
And if they should take another ground, and say that our 
argument to prove from the work of creation that Christ 
is God, implies that, inasmuch as God the Father is Cre- 
ator as well as Christ, there must be two Gods, they would 
certainly say this without sufficient reason ; for who has 
ever disproved or can disprove the truth of the position 
that the Father is God and Christ is God, and yet there 
is only one God? After all that the Unitarians have said, 
it remains perfectly clear that the Father and the Son may 
be distinct and different in some respects, so that they 
may be properly spoken of with distinct appellations as 
two personal agents, and yet be one and the same as to di- 
vine nature or perfection ; that is, one and the same God." 
(Leonard Woods, Vol. I, p. 352.) 

Forgiveness of Sins. — "In the manifest reason of 
the thing, no one can forgive but the party offended ; and 
as sin is the transgression of the law of God, he alone is 
the offended party, and he only, therefore, can forgive. 
Mediately others may declare his pardoning acts, or the 
condition on which he determines to forgive ; but author- 
itatively there can be no actual forgiveness of sins against 
God but by God himself. But Christ forgives sins author- 
itatively, and he is, therefore, God. One passage is all 
that is necessary to prove this: * He said unto the sick of 
the palsy, Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven 
thee.' (Matt, ix, 2, 6.) The scribes who were present 
understood that he did this authoritatively, and assumed 
in the case the rights of Divinity. They, therefore, said 
among themselves, 'This man blaspheme th.' What, then, 

13 



146 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

is the conduct of our Lord? Does he admit that he only 
ministerially declared, in consequence of some revelation, 
that God had forgiven the sins of the paralytic ? On the 
contrary, he works a miracle to prove to them that the 
very right which they disputed was vested in him ; that 
he had this authority — ' but that ye may know that the 
Son of man hath power on earth to fogive sins, then saith 
lie to the sick of the palsy, Arise, take up thy bed, and go 
into thine own house.'" (Watson.) 

Unitarians assert that Christ's forgiving the man, and 
healing his palsy, no more imply the Deity of Christ than 
the miracles of the apostles, and their power to bind and 
loose on earth, evince their Deity. But this is not true. 
The apostles always wrought their miracles in the name of 
Christ, because they received their power from Christ. 
''Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents," etc. 
(Luke x, 19.) "And he gave them power and authority 
over all devils, and to cure diseases." (Luke ix, 1.) "In 
my name shall they cast out devils." (Mark xvi, 17.) 
"In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and 
walk." (Acts iii, 6.) "And his name, through faith in 
his name, hath made this man strong." (Acts iii, 17.) 
"By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, . . . doth 
this man stand here before you all." "Eneas, Jesus 
Christ maketh thee whole." To Elymas, the sorcerer, Paul 
said: "The hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou 
shalt be blind." " I command thee, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, to come out of her." (Acts ix, 34; xiii, 11; xvi, 
18.) In broad contrast with these utterances of the apos- 
tles, Christ wrought his miracles in his own name and by 
his own authority. He said to the leper: "I will, be 
thou clean." (Matt, viii, 3.) To the dead son of the 
widow of Nain, Christ said: "Young man, I say unto 
thee, arise." (Luke vii, 14.) Again, the apostles preached 
forgiveness in the name of Christ; they never ventured 
to forgive sin in their own name. Christ forgave sin in 



DIVINE WORSHIP RENDERED TO CHRIST. 147 

his own name. "To the Lord our God belong mercies 
and forgiveness" (Dan. ix, 9), but Christ grants forgive- 
ness ; hence Christ must be God. 

DIVINE WORSHIP RENDERED TO CHRIST. 

"During the days of his earthly life, our Lord was 
surrounded by acts of homage, ranging, as it might seem, 
so far as the intentions of those who offered them were 
concerned, from the wonted forms of Eastern courtesy up 
to the most direct and conscious acts of divine worship. 
As an infant, he was ' worshiped ' by the Eastern sages ; 
and during his ministry he constantly received and wel- 
comed acts and words, expressive of an intense devotion 
to his sacred person, on the part of those who sought or 
who had received from him some supernatural aid or bless- 
ing. The leper worshiped him, crying out : ' Lord, if thou 
wilt, thou canst make .me clean.' Jairus worshiped him, 
saying : ' My daughter is even now dead ; but come, and 
lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live/ The mother 
of Zebedee's children came near to him, worshiping him, 
and asking him to bestow upon her sons the first places of 
honor in his kingdom. The woman of Canaan, whose 
daughter was ' grievously vexed with a devil/ ' came and 
worshiped him, saying, Lord, help me.' The father of the 
poor lunatic, who met Jesus as he descended from the 
mount of transfiguration, ' came, kneeling down to him, 
and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son/ These are in- 
stances of worship, accompanying prayers for special 
mercies. ... At other times such visible worship of 
our Savior was an act of acknowledgment or of thanks- 
giving for mercies received. Thus it was with the grate- 
ful Samaritan leper, who, ' when he saw that he was 
healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, 
and fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks/ 
Thus it was when Jesus had appeared walking on the sea, 
and had quieted the storm, and ' they that were in the 



148 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

ship came and worshiped him, saying, Of a truth thou art 
the Son of God/ Thus, too, was it after the miraculous 
draught of fishes, that St. Peter, astonished at the great- 
ness of the miracle, ' fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, 
Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.' Thus 
the penitent, ' when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in 
the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of oint- 
ment, and stood at his feet behind him, weeping, and be- 
gan to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with 
the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed 
them with the ointment.' Thus, again, when the man 
born blind confesses his faith in the Son of God, he ac- 
companies it by an undoubted act of adoration : ' And he 
said, Lord, I believe. And he worshiped him.'" (Liddon's 
Bampton Lectures, pp. 364, 365.) 

Having laid before the reader the evidence that Jesus 
Christ was worshiped by men during his human life upon 
earth, it now becomes necessary to inquire into the nature 
of that worship. It will not be denied that sometimes 
this worship may have been nothing more than the hom- 
age paid by Orientals to acknowledged superiors. "This 
word (jzpoGY.oveTv) occurs sixty times in the New Testa- 
ment. Of these there are two, which, without controversy, 
denote the customary act of civil homage; fifteen refer to 
idolatrous rites, three are used of mistaken and disap- 
proved homage to creatures, about twenty-five clearly and 
undeniably respect the worship of the Most High God, and 
the remaining number relate to acts of homage paid to 
Jesus Christ." (Smith's Messiah, Vol. II, 295.) 

This worship was sometimes paid to Christ under cir- 
cumstances that proved it to be divine. The following 
propositions are submitted in proof of this assertion : 
1. Our Lord did not receive the homage due to a civil 
ruler, for he denied being such, and refused all such hom- 
age. 2. The same worship that Christ received during his 
life-time was vehemently refused by apostles and angels as 



ARUN NOTIONS REVIEWED. 149 

being due to God only. 3. Moses, Christ, and the apos- 
tles, all teach that God is the only proper subject of wor- 
ship. 4. Worship was sometimes paid to Christ under 
such circumstances as proved it to be in the highest sense 
divine. 

ARIAN NOTIONS REVIEWED. 

Our Lord did not receive the homage that was due to 
a civil ruler, for he denied T)eing such, and refused all 
such homage. He purposely avoided everything that 
looked like the assumption of civil authority. "When 
Jesus therefore perceived that they would come by force 
to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain 
himself alone." (John vi, 15.) When he was urged to 
exercise magisterial authority between two disputing breth- 
ren, he answered: "Man, who made me a judge or di- 
vider over you?" (Luke xii, 14.) He said positively: 
"I judge no man." (John viii, 15.) When Pilate ques- 
tioned him about his kingdom, he said: "My kingdom is 
not of this world." (John xviii, 36.) It was as if he had 
said: "I interfere not with your authority, neither am I 
an enemy to Csesar. I assume no worldly state nor 
riches." (Cottage Testament.) 

He did not receive such homage as a rabbi ; for he 
emphatically denounced the rabbis because they loved 
" greetings in the market, and to be called of men Rabbi, 
Rabbi." (Matt, xxiii, 6.) He did not receive this hom- 
age " as a simple teacher of religion; for his apostles then 
might have imitated his example, since, upon the Socin- 
ian hypothesis of his mere manhood, they, when they had 
collected disciples and founded Churches, had as clear a 
right to this distinction as he himself, had it only been 
one of appropriate and common courtesy sanctioned by 
their Master." (Watson.) But we have no record of the 
apostles receiving such worship. On the contrary, Peter 
refused to receive it from Cornelius, saying, "Stand up; 



150 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

I myself also am a man." (Acts x, 26.) When this wor- 
ship was offered to Paul and Barnabas at Lystra, "they 
rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying 
out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also 
are men of like passions with you." (Acts xiv, 14, 15.) 
Moreover, the Mosaic law prohibited the worship of any 
other being but God: "Thou shalt worship no other god." 
(Ex. xxxiv, 14.) "Prepare your hearts unto the Lord, 
and serve him only." (1 Sam. vii, 3.) "Thou shalt 
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." 
(Matt, iv, 10.) " Who changed the truth of God into a 
lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the 
Creator." (Rom. i, 25.) "Worship God." (Rev. xix, 
10; xxii, 8, 9.) 

Unitarians sometimes say that although we are forbid- 
den to worship any other god but Jehovah, yet we are 
not forbidden to offer inferior worship to inferior beiugs. 
But the Bible knows nothing about any such distinctions 
in worship as superior worship and inferior worship. It 
commands us to serve the Lord only. Jesus, in rebuking 
the devil, asserted that the Lord God was the only proper 
person to worship. The apostle pointed it out as one of 
the crimes of heathendom that they worshiped the creature, 
while the emphatic words of the angel, "Worship God," 
forbid us worshiping any one else but God. "He does 
not say * Worship God, and whom God shall appoint to 
be worshiped/ as if he had appointed any besides God ; 
nor * worship God with sovereign worship/ as if any in- 
ferior sort of worship was permitted to be paid to crea- 
tures ; but simply, plainly, and briefly, 'Worship God.'" 
(Watson.) 

The worship received by Christ during his human life- 
time was sometimes rendered under circumstances that 
proved it to be supremely divine. Two instances will be 
sufficient to illustrate and prove this statement: "When 
the man who had been cured of blindness by Jesus, and 



ARIAN NO TIONS REVIE WED. 151 

who had defended his prophetic character before the coun- 
cil before he knew that he had a higher character than 
that of prophet, was met in private by Jesus, and in- 
structed in the additional fact that he was ' the Son of 
God/ he worshiped him. ' Jesus heard that they had cast 
him out, and when he found him, he said unto him, Dost 
thou believe in the Son of God? He answered and said, 
Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him ? And 
Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is 
he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe, 
and he worshiped him/ — worshiped him, be it observed, 
under his character ' Son of God/ a title which we have 
already seen was regarded by the Jews as implying actual 
Divinity, and which the man understood to raise Jesus 
far above the rank of a mere prophet. The worship paid 
by this man must, therefore, in its intention, have been 
supreme; for it was offered to a divine person, the Son of 
God." (Watson.) 

Christ was worshiped by the disciples in the ship on 
the sea of Tiberias. (Matt. xiv. 22-33.) The nature of 
this worship is shown by the history of the case. On 
the preceding day they had seen him feed the five thou- 
sand with the five loaves and two fishes. That night 
they saw him walk on the water. "This suspension of 
the laws of gravitation was a proper manifestation of om- 
nipotence." (Cottage Testament.) It was declared to be 
the act of God only, " which alone spreadeth out the heav- 
ens, and treadeth upon the waters of the waves of the sea." 
(Job ix, 8.) They saw him save drowning Peter. They 
saw the wind cease at his presence. These wonders im- 
pressed them with a conviction of his omnipotence, and, 
calling him " the Son of God," they rendered him the 
worship that was due to his supreme Divinity. 

Evidence will now be presented proving that divine 
worship was rendered to Christ after his ascension to glory. 
In proving that divine worship was rendered to Christ by 



152 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

the apostles and disciples, it has been usual to refer to 
Luke xxiv, 51, 52. The words "and they worshiped 
him "have been objected to as being spurious; and as 
Tischendorf and AVestcott and Hort have marked them as 
interpolations, I will not present them. The evidence 
proving that our Lord had supreme worship paid to him 
is too abundant and strong to make it necessary to refer 
to any evidence of doubtful value. 

Acts i, 24 : " And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which 
knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou 
hast chosen." 

That this was a prayer to Christ seems evident from the 
following items: 

1. "Lord" was the title by which the apostles com- 
monly addressed Christ, or spoke of him. 

2. It is by this title that the name Jesus ("Lord 
Jesus") is introduced in verse 21. 

3. The appointment of an apostle was a matter per- 
taining to our Lord as the "head of the Church." He 
had chosen the apostles ; he had commissioned them ; he 
had fixed their number; he had been the companion of 
both of the men whose names were cast in this lot. It 
was our Lord Jesus Christ who had given Judas " part of 
this ministry," and our Lord was now asked to "shew 
whether of these two" he had choice to "take part of this 
ministry and apostleship from which Judas, by transgres- 
sion, fell." Furthermore, the person spoken to in this 
text is adduced as "thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts 
of all" — xapdioyvaJGra, " heart-searcher." This power is 
attributed to our Lord Jesus Christ: "These things saith 
the Son of God, I am he which searcheth the reins and 
hearts." (Rev. ii, 23.) 

All these points center upon Christ as the person to 
whom this prayer was addressed. This act of the apos- 
tles was a twofold worship of Christ : 1. The offering of 
prayer to Christ was worship paid to Christ. 2. The 



AEIAN NOTIONS REVIEWED. 153 

apostles ascribed to him the omniscience of the Supreme 
Being. 

Acts vii, 59, 60 : " And they stoned Stephen, calling upon 
God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive rny spirit. And he kneeled 
down and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their 
charge." 

The word "God" is not in the Greek text, and should 
not be in the English Version. In this passage several 
points should be carefully noticed : 

1. Stephen knew that the time of his death had come. 

2. He "was full of the Holy Spirit." On a kindred 
text Albert Barnes remarks: "To be filled with anything 
is a phrase denoting that all the faculties are pervaded by 
it, engaged in it, or under its influence. Acts iii, 10, 
' Were filled with wonder and amazement;' verse 17, ' Filled 
with indignation ;' xiii, 45, ' Filled with envy;' verse 52, 
'Filled with joy and the Holy Spirit/ " Adam Clarke 
comments thus: "He is holy because the Spirit of holi- 
ness dwells in him. He has not a few transient visitations 
or drawings from that Spirit ; it is a resident in his soul, 
and it fills his heart. It is light in his understanding; it 
is discrimination in his judgment; it is fixed purpose and 
determination in righteousness in his will; it is purity, 
love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temper- 
ance, and fidelity in his affections and passions; in a 
word, it has sovereign sway in his heart, it governs all 
passion, and is the motive and principle of every right- 
eous action." 

3. Stephen was not only perfectly controlled by the 
Holy Spirit, but he saw the glory of God, and knew that 
he was in the Divine presence. 

4. Under these circumstances Stephen addressed his 
prayer to Jesus Christ. 

5. In this prayer Stephen commits his soul to our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and he does this in the same manner in which 
Jesus Christ commended his soul to God the Father. In 



154 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

doing so lie acknowledges Christ to be the disposer of the 
eternal states of men. 

6. In this prayer Stephen asks Jesus Christ to forgive 
the sin of his murderers; but God only can forgive sin. 
Thus Stephen worships Christ as the Preserver and Judge 
of men. Stephen offers to Christ the same prayers that 
Christ during his crucifixion had offered to God the Father ; 
but Christ's prayer to the Father w T as an act of supreme 
worship ; hence Stephen in his prayer offers supreme wor- 
ship to Christ. 

7. Stephen was tried on the charge of blasphemy, be- 
cause he attributed to Christ authority such as belonged 
to God only (Acts vi, 13, 14) ; hence it was appropriate 
that this last act of his should be a prayer to Christ 
as God. 

If our Lord Jesus Christ be not God, then Stephen, 
the first martyr of the Christian Church, died in the very 
act of idolatry. 

1 Corinthians i, 2 : " Unto the Church of God which is at 
Corinth, . . . with all that in every place call upon the name 
of Jesus Christ our Lord." 

In this text Paul designates Christians as those who 
"call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." To call 
upon the name of God is to worship God in prayer. This 
point will be easily settled by its Biblical usage. At Beer- 
sheba Abraham " called on the name of the Lord, the ev- 
erlasting God." (Gen. xxi, 33.) "Give thanks unto the 
Lord, call upon his name." (1 Chron. xvi, 8 ; Ps. cv, 1.) 
"Praise ye the Lord, call upon his name." (Isa. xii, 4.) 
" Then called I upon the Lord; O Lord, I beseech thee, 
deliver my soul." (Ps. cxvi, 4.) Elijah said at Carmel 
to the priests of Baal, " Call ye on the name of your gods, 
and I will call on the name of the Lord." (1 Kings xvii, 
24.) In Joel ii, 32, we read: "Whosoever shall call 
upon the name of the Lord shall be delivered." In the 
New Testament it reads " shall be saved." (Acts ii, 21; 



ARIAN NOTIONS RE VIE WED. 155 

Komans x, 13.) Saul of Tarsus went to Damascus with 
authority " to bind all that call upon the name of Jesus 
Christ." (Acts ix, 14, 21.) Saul was exhorted to wash 
away his sins, "calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 
xxii, 16.) Stephen, a martyr to the supreme Divinity 
of Christ, died calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus. 
(Acts vii, 59, 60.) A careful examination of the pre- 
ceding passages can not fail to convince the reader that 
" calling upon the name of the Lord" denotes an act of 
supreme worship, and that Paul addressed his epistle to 
all who paid this supreme worship to Christ. 

2 Corinthians xii, 7-9: " And lest I should be exalted 
above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there 
was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to 
buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this 
thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from 
me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee : for 
my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly there- 
fore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of 
Christ may rest upon me." 

The following points are presented in proof that this 
prayer was offered to Christ : 

1. The prayer begins with the title "Lord." This is 
the common title of Christ. 

2. Leaving out of the narrative the two parentheses 
contained in verses 2 and 3, there is no person mentioned 
except Christ to whom the prayer could be addressed. 

3. The prayer is evidently answered by the person to 
whom it was addressed ; but Paul attributes the answer to 
Christ. A little irregularity in the translation hinders this 
from being seen as plainly as it otherwise would be. The 
words " strength" and "power" in verse 9 are translations 
of one and the same Greek word, duvafiu;, and ought to 
be rendered "power" in each instance. Again, the words 
"weakness" and " infirmities" are translations of one and 
the same Greek word, dettivsta, and ought to be rendered 
"weakness" in each instance. The verse would then 



156 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

read: "My power is made perfect in weakness. ... I 
rather glory in my weakness, that the power of Christ 
may rest upon me." The "Lord," whom Paul addressed, 
promised "power" to sustain him; but Paul calls this 
power " the power of Christ," showing conclusively that 
it was Christ, the author of this power, to whom Paul 
had addressed his prayer. 

2 Thessalonians ii, 16, 17: "Now our Lord Jesus Christ 
himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and 
hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope through 
grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word 
and work." 

Here prayer is offered to Christ in unison with the 
Father. Paul w T ould not offer to God the Father any wor- 
ship that was less than supreme, but he here offers the 
same worship to Christ. 

Unitarians assert that " we must consider Paul's lan- 
guage as founded upon the conception which he enter- 
tained of Christ's extraordinary agency over the concerns 
of the first Christians." Was Paul mistaken in this con- 
ception? Was he wrong in offering Christ the same wor- 
ship that he offered to the eternal Father? On this occa- 
sion did not Paul "honor the Son even as he honored the 
Father ?" A similar prayer is to be found in 1 Thess. iii, 
11: "Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord 
Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you." " It is a striking 
fact that both here and in 2 Thess. ii, 16, 17, the verb is 
singular in the Greek with God and Christ for the nom- 
inative — a striking proof of the apostle's assumption of their 
oneness." 

Hebrews i, 6 : " And again, when he bringeth in the first 
begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God 
worship him.' , 

This text is obviously a quotation from Psalm xcvii, 
7, which reads in the Hebrew, " Worship him, all ye gods." 
Watson suggests that this is probably an "ellipsis for the 



ARIAN NO TIONS BE VIE WED. 1 57 

1 angels of the Aleim ;' for the LXX uses the word * angels.'" 
Unitarians say that "the connection shows that heathen 
gods are denoted. Though they have no real existence, 
they are figuratively represented as bowing down before 
the majesty of Jehovah." 

The answer of Owen to this is final. The following is 
an abridgment of it: "It can not be that the psalmist 
should exhort the idols of the heathen, some whereof were 
devils, some dead men, some inanimate parts of the cre- 
ation, unto a reverential worshiping of God reigning over 
all. * Elohim,' here rendered ' angels,' in the Septuagint 
is so far in this place from being exegetical of ' Elihim,' 
' gods,' (idols) that it is put in direct opposition to it, as 
is evident from the words themselves. The word ' Elohim,' 
which most frequently denotes the true God, is never used 
to designate a heathen or false god unless joined with 
some other word which denotes its application, such as 'his 
god,' or 'their gods,' or ' the gods of this or that people,' 
in which case it is rendered by the LXX by some proper 
term designating its inferior usage. Magistrates are some- 
times called Elohim because of the representation they 
make of God in his power, and their peculiar subordi- 
nation unto him in their working; but they are not in- 
tended here, as any reference to them would be totally 
foreign to the purpose of the psalmist. Angels are called 
'Elohim.' (Psalm viii, 6, and cxxxviii, 1.) These alone 
are they whom the psalmist speaks to." 

The Septuagint reads, "Let all the angels." Paul, 
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says, " Let all 
the angels of God worship him." As this worship was to be 
paid by angels, it can not be resolved into mere obeisance. 

"That religious worship is here intended is certain, 
because the object of the worship commanded is directly 
opposed in the command itself to idols, and the worship 
required to that which is forbidden. Confounded be all 
they that serve — that is, religiously worship — graven 



158 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

images, that boast themselves of idols. As if God had 
said, Worship no more graven images nor idols of any 
kind ; for all their worshipers shall be confounded. Wor- 
ship him — the Messiah, the Sou of God; and not only 
you, the sottish men who are guilty of this idolatry, but 
all ye angels also." (D wight.) 

Paul asserts that this worship was ordered to be paid 
to Christ, thus identifying Christ with the Jehovah of the 
Old Testament, and settling the fact that, by command 
of the Father, supreme worship was paid to Christ. 

John v, 23: "That all men should honor the Son, even as 
they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son hon- 
oreth not the Father which hath sent him." 

In this text it is proposed by our blessed Savior that 
all men shall honor him even as they honor the Father. 
"It will not be denied that rtfidat naturally means to obey, 
reverence, and worship. Nor will it be denied that this 
honor, in suitable degree, may be paid to men. When 
rendered to God it consists supremely in religious worship — 
in making him the object of our supreme affection, and 
rendering to him our supreme obedience." (D wight.) 

The text demands that Christ receive the same honor 
with the Father. "The honor which we give to the 
Father consists in adoration, praise, unreserved confidence, 
humble submission, and, in a word, the dedication of soul 
and body to his service. We are, therefore, to adore the 
Son, and to make him the object of our trust and hope, 
to resign ourselves to his disposal, and to yield implicit 
obedience to his commands." (Dick.) 

Inasmuch as all men are required to honor the Son 
as they honor the Father, and as they who do not honor 
the Son as they do the Father are regarded as not prop- 
erly honoring the Father, it follows that equal honor is 
due to the Son with the Father. 

Let us now consider the doxologies to Christ. 



OBJECTIONS TO WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 159 

2 Timothy iv, 18 : " And the Lord shall deliver me from 
every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly king- 
dom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." 

This doxology is addressed to Christ by his usual title 
of "Lord." The apostle predicates his doxology upon his 
faith in the providence of Christ, upon Christ's power to 
keep him from falling, and upon Christ's power to bring 
him safely to heaven — crdxret eiq ttjv ftavdeiav — "will save 
me into his kingdom ; i. e., save me, translating me into, 
etc." (Winer.) The doxology consists in an ascription 
of eternal glory to Christ. In Romans xvi, 27, the same 
doxology is ascribed to God the Father: "To God only 
wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen." 
No one questions the fact of this being supreme worship ; 
but this same worship is here paid to Christ ; hence su- 
preme worship is paid to Christ. The same doxology is 
rendered to Christ in 2 Peter iii, 18: "To him be glory 
both now and to the day of eternity." (Wesley.) 

Eevelation i, 5, 6: " Unto him that loved us, and washed 
us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and 
priests unto God and his Father ; to him be glory and domin- 
ion for ever and ever. Amen." 

This doxology ascribes to Christ eternal glory and domin- 
ion. To ascribe these honors to any other being than God 
would be blasphemous; but they are here ascribed to 
Christ, hence he is here worshiped as God. The words 
(excepting "glory") are precisely the same, both in Greek 
and English, with Peter's doxology to the Father (1 Peter 
v, 11) : "To him be dominion for ever and ever. Amen." 
Hence John pays to Christ the same supreme worship that 
Peter pays to the Father. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 

We will now examine two objections which are made 
to the proposition that Christ was and is the proper object 
of supreme worship. 



160 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Unitarians quote the first sentence of the Lord's Prayer 
in connection with John iv, 23, " The hour cometh, and 
now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father 
in spirit and in truth," and then assert that our Lord al- 
ways directed his followers to pray to the Father. This 
objection w T ill not stand an examination. Christ does not 
forbid us praying to him. He does not intimate that the 
Father is the only object of worship. Do we honor the 
Father when we pray to him? Then we must pray to 
the Son also ; for the Son has taught us that we should 
' ' honor " him "even as" we "honor the Father." (John 
v, 23.) In perfect harmony with this, Christ said (John 
xiv, 13, 14) : "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that 
will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If 
ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." In con- 
nection with these words notice the following points: 1. 
The prayer is to be offered in the name of Christ — " in 
my name." 2. The answer to the prayer is given by 
Christ—" that will I do;" "I will do it." 3. The prayer 
and its answer were for the joint glory of the Father and 
of Christ — " that the Father may be glorified in the Son." 
These items prove conclusively that the prayer was offered 
to Christ as well as to the Father. 

Unitarians quote John xvi, 23 : " And in that day ye 
shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will 
give it you." Having quoted this text, they then insist 
that Christ here forbids prayer beiug offered to himself. 
But this is to involve our Lord in a contradiction where 
no contradiction exists. We have already seen that Jesus 
taught his disciples to pray to him conjointly with the 
Father. (John iv, 23, compared with chapter v, 23; and 
xiv, 13, 14.) The word "ask" occurs twice in the text — 
"shall ask me " and "shall ask the Father." In the Greek 
the words are not the same. In the first clause the word 
is ipiordio ; in the second clause the word is ahiaj. 'Epwrdw 



THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 161 

is often used in the sense of " asking a question," " in- 
quiring," etc. ; but ahiaj is never used in the sense of 
asking a question, but almost always to ask a favor — so- 
licit, entreat, pray, etc. The disciples were anxious to 
ask a question of our Lord (verse 19). Jesus knew it, 
and said the day was coming when they would not need 
to ask questions of him ; for he would send the Holy 
Spirit, who would guide them into all truth ; but if they 
needed help, and prayed to the Father and him for it, 
they should receive it. "If ye shall ask anything in my 
name, I will do it." The examination of the text war- 
rants the conclusion that our Lord does not forbid us pray- 
ing to him, but encourages us to do so. 

The import of the text is beautifully given by John 
Brown of Haddington: "And under this comforting light 
and these influences of my Spirit, ye shall neither need 
my bodily presence, nor to ask information as ye now do. 
But I solemnly assure you that whatever ye, by the as- 
sistance of the Spirit, shall ask my Father and yours, with 
faith in my name as your only Mediator, High Priest, 
and Advocate, he will readily grant it on my account." 
(Brown's Family Bible.) 

THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 

Before the discussion of the humanity of our Lord as 
held by the Athanasian Creed, by the Articles of Keligion 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and by such writers as 
Pearson, Barrow, Watson, Baymond, and others of less 
note, it seems to be appropriate to spend a little time in 
the examination of the so-called " Kenotic theory." This 
theory is built upon a misconception of John i, 14 : " And 
the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (Revised 
Version, " The Word became flesh," etc); and Phil, ii, 
5-8: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ 
Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not 
robbery to be equal with God : but made himself of no 

14 



162 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and 
was made in the likeness of men : and being found in 
fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obe- 
dient unto death, even the death of the cross." 

It gets its name from the use its advocates make of the 
word h.ivuxre in the sentence "he humbled himself." 
(Phil, ii, 7.) 

The Kenotic Theory. 

The more prominent advocates of the Kenotic theory 
have been Thomasius, Ebrard, Dorner, Gess, Nast, Mar- 
ten sen, H. W. Beecher, and Reubelt. The outlines of the 
theory may be stated as follows: 1. It denies that Christ 
has a human soul. 2. It teaches the Logos, or Second 
Person in the Trinity, acted the part of a human soul in 
Christ. 3. That in Christ the Logos, or Divine nature, 
minified itself down to the limitations of a human soul. 

While the advocates of Kenosis agree in the foregoing 
particulars, they are divided among themselves upon other 
matters connected with the theory. Thus Gess and Reu- 
belt teach that during Christ's humiliation there was a 
total relinquishment of the Divine self-consciousness. I 
quote the following extract from Gess, as furnished by 
Dr. Nast in the Methodist Quarterly Review, 1860, p. 455: 
" But the Logos became flesh. He determines to suspend 
his eternal consciousness and his eternal will in order to 
resume it in the proper time, and in proportion to the 
strength of the bodily organisms, with which he unites 
himself in the form of human development. From this 
it follows that the flowing over of the Father's fullness 
into the Son ceases for the time of his sojourn upon earth. 
Where there is no receiving, there is no giving — the Son, 
existing in a state of unconsciousness, and then in the nar- 
row limits of self-consciousness and human will, does not 
receive into himself the infinite stream of the Father's life. 
During this period the Son lives by the Father, as the dis- 



THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST 163 

ciple of the exalted Savior lives through the Savior. The 
Father is in the Son on earth too, but the Son receives the 
Father's fullness into himself only wave by wave, just as 
the disciples can drink only by drops the life-stream of 
the exalted Savior. But though the Logos has, after his 
incarnation, no longer his eternal self-consciousness nor will, 
yet the substance of the Logos is still the same after his 
having become man. The substance of our human soul, 
that now lives within so narrow limits, and that will here- 
after live in the liberty of eternal life, is, in a similar man- 
ner, the same. It is this identity of the Son's substance 
before and after the incarnation which constitutes Christ's 
superiority to men and angels while he was upon earth. 
On the other hand, the change of the divine form of self- 
consciousness and will into the human form of self-con- 
sciousness and will, and the ceasing of the overflow of the 
Father's fullness into the Son, as conditioned thereby, con- 
stitutes the basis on which Christ's equality with other 
men rests." 

Inasmuch as the answer to the other modification of 
this theory as held by Ebrard and Nast applies with full 
force to the foregoing presentation of it by Gess, I will 
waive the full answer to it until I have presented Dr. 
Nast's view of the theory, only stopping at present to offer 
a remark upon the assertion that the Logos in his incar- 
nation determined to suspend his Divine self-consciousness. 
However satisfactory this statement may be to metaphy- 
sicians, it is in direct antagonism with the general tenor 
of his statements concerning himself. Witness the follow- 
ing : "That all men should honor the Son, even as they 
honor the Father." (John v, 23.) "Before Abraham 
was, I am." " As the Father knoweth me, even so know 
I the Father." " I and my Father are one." "Ye believe 
in God, believe also in me." " He that hath seen me hath 
seen the Father." If these words of Christ do not prove 
a clear Divine self-consciousness, then it would be difficult 



164 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

to tell how a Divine self-consciousness could be proven. 
Gess endeavors to smooth his statement of the theory by 
drawing an analogy between the condition of the incar- 
nate Logos and the will of man asleep. He says : 

" When this sinks into slumber, all the powers of the 
soul fall asleep. It was the substance of the Logos which 
in itself had the power to call the world into existence, to 
uphold and enlighten it ; but when the Logos sank into 
the slumber of unconsciousness, his eternal holiness, his 
omniscience, his omnipresence, and all his really divine 
attributes were gone, it being the self-conscious will of the 
Logos through which all the Divine power abiding in him 
had been called into action. They were gone— i. e., sus- 
pended — existing still, but only potentially. Further, a 
man when he wakes from sleep is at once in full pos- 
session of all his powers and faculties ; but when con- 
sciousness burst upon Jesus it was not that of the eternal 
Logos, but a really human self-consciousness, which devel- 
ops by degrees, and preserves its identity only through 
constant changes." (Reubelt's translation of Gess on the 
Person of Christ, p. 342.) 

It would be extremely difficult to tell from the forego- 
ing statement of Gess what the nature of Christ's self- 
consciousness was. Gess says "the Logos sank into the 
slumber of unconsciousness." The Logos was the Jehovah 
of the Old Testament. Now Elijah, at Carmel, insinuated 
to the idolatrous prophets that possibly Baal was asleep ; 
but of the Logos (Jehovah) it is said he "shall neither 
slumber nor sleep." (Ps. cxxi, 3, 4.) The sinking into 
unconsciousness involves the suspension of all intelligence, 
of all voluntary life for the time being; hence if "the 
Logos sank into unconsciousness," then there was a period 
of time, be it long or short, in which all the intelligence 
and voluntary life of the Logos was suspended — a time 
in which the second Person of the Trinity was destitute 
of all knowledge, feeling, and power. The theory can not 



THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 165 

escape this conclusion, and it is fatal to it. Again, self- 
consciousness pertains not to the body, but to the immate- 
rial, intelligent spirit. Self-consciousness is an apperception 
of self as it really exists — not of an imaginary self, but 
the true self. It is not possible for an intelligent being 
to have a fictitious or false self-consciousness. An intelli- 
gent being can not have the consciousness of any other 
nature than his own. A man does not and can not have 
the self-consciousness of an angel nor of God ; nor can an 
angel have the self-consciousness of either a man or God, 
and (we speak it reverently) it is just as impossible for 
God to have the self-consciousness of a man or of an angel 
as it would be for him to be and not to be at the same 
time. According to this theory of Gess, the Divine Logos 
"sank into the slumber of unconsciousness," during which 
its intelligence, feeling, and power were all suspended. It 
awoke out of this intellectual blank to pass through thirty- 
three years of activity and suffering burdened with a spu- 
rious self-consciousness — a self-consciousness of humanity 
when there was no humanity in the case, no human soul, 
nothing but an unintelligent human body. A theory which 
puts the Divine nature under a total suspension of all its 
powers, and then clouds it for years with a delusion, is 
too monstrous to be received. 

The other modification of this theory, as held by Dorner, 
Ebrard, Nast, and H. W. Beecher, may be seen in the 
following quotations from Dr. Nast, in the Methodist 
Quarterly Review, 1860, p. 450: "Do not the simple 
words of the evangelist, ' And the Word became flesh ' 
(John i, 14), contain the key for the proper understanding 
of the personality of the God-man ? Is the plain mean- 
ing of these words about this: The Logos united himself in 
the absolute infinitude of his being with the man Jesus, 
begotten by the Holy Ghost, to constitute one personality 
with him? or is it, rather, the Logos without giving up 
his Divine substance — a thing that would be an impossi- 



166 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

bility — became by assuming human flesh and blood, a hu- 
man being, living in a truly human form of existence and 
in human lowliness? In short, does the passage not clearly 
mean that the Logos, without giving up his Divine nature, 
became to all intents and purposes a man ? that he who is 
God, from God, and in God from all eternity, entered into 
the sphere of time and space ; that he, by an act of empty- 
ing himself, subjected himself to human development, and 
assumed human existence and life, human will and intuition, 
feeling, and thinking ? Does not the oneness of the Di- 
vine and the human in Christ consist in this : that he, re- 
taining his Divine nature, took upon himself as an attri- 
bute the human form of existence and human condition, 
and, in consequence thereof, had human feeling, human 
will, and human thinking?" 

Professor Reubelt published an article in support of 
this theory in the Bibliotheca Sacra of 1870, in which we 
find the following: "If, as the Heidelberg Catechism says, 
his Godhead neither was nor is limited to his human na- 
ture which he assumed, he (the Logos) may have been 
united in some intimate way or other with the human na- 
ture, but not by a personal anion, which implies that the 
whole Logos be confined to the human nature as the man 
Jesus, be consequently nowhere outside of him, as the hu- 
man soul is personally present only in the body during 
the latter's life ; a different incarnation would seem to be 
no reality, no incarnation at all." {Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 
18.) There would be considerable force in the preceding 
argument if the Divine Logos and the human soul were 
material substances, having length, breadth, and thick- 
ness; but as neither the Divine Logos nor the human 
soul has such attributes, the logic fails. The argument 
amounts to about this: You can not apply all of the parts 
of a cube of ten inches to a cube of one inch ; hence the 
Divine nature can not join itself to human nature. Pro- 
fessor Reubelt's argument would be true enough in geom- 



THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 167 

etry, but utterly untrue in psychology and divinity. There 
is nothing in Professor Reubelt's argument that proves the 
impossibility of the Divine Logos retaining its infinite per- 
fections and yet being inseparably united to human nature. 
Let us hear Professor Reubelt once more : " If the Savior 
knew some things as to his Divine nature which he did not 
know as to his humaa nature ; if he could truthfully say 
that the Father was greater than he as to his human na- 
ture, but that the Father and he as to his Divine nature 
were one, the Divine nature and the human nature can 
evidently not have been united in him by a personal union, 
nor can they have been so united as to constitute oneness 
of personality. On the contrary, by ascribing all the at- 
tributes of personality, as self-consciousness and will, think- 
ing, judging, feeling, to each nature, and even the expres- 
sion of personality, viz., I, ' nature ' is thereby made sy- 
nonymous with ' personality/ and two such 'natures' can 
not form one person." (Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 18.) 

The following points are submitted in answer to the 
foregoing: 1st. Christ speaks of an inferiority to the 
Father, thus: "My Father is greater than all;" "My 
Father is greater than I." (John x, 29; xiv, 28.) 2d. 
He speaks of an equality with the Father: "All men 
should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father;" "I 
and the Father are one." (John v, 23; x, 30.) 3d. 
This diversity in his manner of speaking can be accounted 
for only on the supposition of a duality of persons, or of a 
duality of natures. 4th. But Christ never spoke in a man- 
ner which would lead us to suspect a duality of persons. 
He always spoke and acted as one single person ; hence 
the duality was not personal, but in his natures. Profes- 
sor Reubelt says : "If another personality, another I than 
that of the Logos, had been in Jesus, it is inconceivable 
that no mention should have been made thereof." True; 
but his personality was not dual, but single, while his na- 
ture was dual. Professor Reubelt says: "If the incar- 



168 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

nated Logos was always in the possession of his divine or 
eternal holiness, how could he learn obedience, how could 
he be perfected (Heb. v, 8, 9)?" (Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 17.) 
There is some ambiguity in the expression "his divine or 
eternal holiness." The holiness of God is perfect holiness; 
that is, it is unmixed with sin. Now, does Professor Reu- 
belt mean to intimate that Christ, (luring his earthly life, 
was not perfectly holy? that he was not free from all sin? 
The testimony of the sacred writers to the holiness of 
Christ is ample. He is called "that holy thing," "thy 
holy child Jesus," " the Holy One and the Just" (Revised 
Version), " the Holy and Righteous One," "who knew no 
sin," " who was without sin," " without spot," and " who 
was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." The 
fact that he "learned obedience" does not prove that he 
had at any time been disobedient. It is not said that he 
learned to obey, but that he learned obedience. He did 
not learn the duty, necessity, or propriety of obeying, but 
he learned by experience what "obedience" was, just "as 
a man learns the taste of meat by eating it." Again, 
he did not learn obedience to the moral law, but " to the 
death of the cross." (Phil, ii, 8,) In Gethsemane, in 
the judgment-hall, and at Calvary, he learned by experi- 
ence what privation and suffering, obedience to that death, 
involved. His " being made perfect" does not imply any 
previous moral imperfection, nor does it refer to any moral 
perfection, but to the consummation or perfection of his 
priestly service. In his sufferings and death he was per- 
fected as the High Priest of our salvation. 

Professor Reubelt asks: "How could he not know the 
day of his second coming, if he was possessed of omnis- 
cience?" This is precisely the question of Unitarians. 
Its only force lies in the assumption that Christ had but 
one nature. For a full answer to this question, see the 
exegesis of Mark xiii, 32. The same remarks will apply 
to Luke ii, 52. Professor Reubelt translates John i, 14, 



THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 169 

thus: "And the Logos became man." To this, Dr. 
Whedon makes two answers: 1st. "If tyivsro is to re- 
ceive so literal a rendering, we must literalize cap* also ; 
and then we shall have it that the eternal Logos ceased to 
be God and became a portion of fleshly matter." 2d. " ' The 
Word became flesh' is far from saying that the Infinite 
essence became a finite soul. In the word flesh, as desig- 
nating our humanity, the corporeal nature is the primitive 
idea, and never ceases to be the leading element. The 
divine soul becomes flesh, or human, just as the human 
soul becomes flesh, or human, by being incarnated in the 
human body." (Methodist Quarterly Review, 1870, p. 
291; 1875, p. 508.) " Zap* is selected for the purpose of 
expressing the full antithesis, and not aw pa, because there 
might be a ecu/ia without cap- (1 Cor. xv, 40, 44) ; and 
besides, the expression c loyoq (jmpa lyhero would not 
necessarlily include the possession of a human soul. . . . 
Since (rap* necessarily carries with it the idea only of the 
<l>oyji, it might seem as if John held the Apollinarian no- 
tion that in Christ there was no human vovq r but that the 
Xoyoq took its place. But it is not really so, because the 
human 4' U X"0 does no ^ exl ^ by itself, but in necessary con- 
nection with the nveupa, and because the New Testament 
(compare viii, 40) knows Jesus only as a perfect man. In 
fact John, in particular, expressly speaks of the <f' u zi 
(xii, 27) and nveu/ia of Christ (xi, 33; xiii, 21; xix, 30), 
which he does not identify with the Logos, but designates 
as the substratum of the human self-consciousness (xi, 38)." 
(Abridged from Meyer.) Meyer adds the following foot- 
note (Com p. 88) : " Rightly has the Church held firmly 
to the perfection (perfectio) of the Divine and human na- 
tures in Christ in the Athanasian sense. No change and 
no defect of nature on the one side or the other can be 
justified on exegetical grounds; and especially no such 
doctrine as that of Gess, that by the incarnation the Logos 
became a human soul or a human spirit." "This modifi- 

15 



170 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

cation, which some apply to the Khwaiq, is unscriptural, 
and is particularly opposed to John's testimony throughout 
his Gospel and First Epistle." (Meyer's Com., p. 88.) 

Professor Reubelt translates Zxivaxre by "emptied," and 
insists upon the literal meaning of the word, that the 
Eternal Son emptied himself of all the attributes and 
qualities of Deity. But this reduces the theory to utter 
atheism. Before the incarnation the Son was God ; he 
was not less than God, and more than God he could not 
be. Now if he divested himself of all the attributes and 
qualities of Deity, then he must have passed out of being, 
and there was no Son, no Logos, no Trinity, no God. 
KevotD occurs but twice in the Old Testament (Jer. xiv, 2 ; 
xv, 9.) In the New Testament it occurs in four places 
besides the text (Rom. iv, 14 ; 1 Cor. i, 17 ; ix, 15 ; 2 Cor. 
ix, 3). In no one of these places does it designate the 
emptying of a subject of its contents. In the two texts in 
Jeremiah it is used in the sense of abase; and this would 
seem to be the most probable sense in Phil, ii, 7. He 
humbled himself, not by losing or relinquishing his Divine 
attributes, but by refusing to use them for his own safety, 
welfare, and glory. 

Professor Reubelt quotes Matt, xxviii, 18, and John 
xi, 42, etc., to prove that Christ did not possess omnipres- 
ence, omniscience, and omnipotence during the days of his 
humiliation. His methods of exegesis are essentially Uni- 
tarian, and are fully answered in the chapters on the At- 
tributes of Christ. 

Objections to Kenosis. 

It now remains to state some objections to the Kenotic 
theory. I will give these objections as they are stated by 
Hodge and Whedon : 

Objection 1. "This doctrine destroys the humanity of 
Christ. He is not and never was a man. He never had 
a human soul or a human heart. It was the substance of 



THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 171 

the Logos invested with a body, and not a human soul. 
A being without a human soul is not a man." (Hodge's 
Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 440.) 

Objection 2. It leads to Socinianism. "Either the 
minified God became truly a human soul, or he did not. 
If he did not, then Christ was not a man. If he did, 
then Christ was not Divine; the fullness of the Godhead 
did not dwell in him bodily; and he was, as Socinus as- 
serted, a mere man." (D. D. Whedon, in Methodist Re- 
view, 1875, p. 508 ) 

Objection S. The doctrine " impugns the Trinity. If 
the second Person of the Trinity became human by ceas- 
ing to be God, then, during the incarnation, there was no 
Trinity." (D. D. Whedon, ibid.) 

Objection 4- "This theory exposes us to atheism. In 
maintaining the argument from effect to cause, we arrive 
at God. The atheist then demands a cause of God ; and 
our reply is that he is the necessary self-existent First 
Cause. But then, as self-existent First Cause, he must 
be necessary and not contingent in his essence, and in the 
fullness of all his attributes. If he may cease to be in- 
finite and .omnipotent First Cause, then atheism is possi- 
ble. It is then reasonable to suppose that he can annihi- 
late himself." (D. D. Whedon, ibid.) 

The Real Humanity of Christ. 

It is now desirable to present the evidence of Christ's 
humanity; not the fictitious humanity that is set forth in 
the Kenotic theory, but a true, genuine humanity. In 
the Athanasian Creed our Lord's humanity is stated as a 
"perfect man, of a reasonable soul, and human flesh sub- 
sisting." " Jesus was born of a woman, grew in wisdom 
and stature, hungered, thirsted; was weary, ate, drank, 
slept, journeyed; was grieved and tempted, sought aid and 
relief in prayer, marveled; was moved with compassion, 
wept; was troubled in spirit, recognized filial and fraternal 



172 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

relations, indulged friendships, felt aversions; he was a 
High Priest, touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and 
was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin ; he 
offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying 
and tears; was crucified, dead, and buried; he lived the 
life and died the death of a man ; he called himself the 
Son of man, and was called our Elder Brother; he was a 
man whose human nature partook of all that essentially 
belongs to our common humanity." (Raymond's Theol- 
ogy, Vol. I, pp. 399-400.) 

In support of the foregoing statement of Christ's hu- 
manity, the following texts and arguments are offered : 

Luke ii, 40, 52 : " And the child grew, and waxed strong 
in spirit, filled with wisdom : and the grace of God was upon 
him. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor 
with God and man." 

Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and the Revised Ver- 
sion reject the words "in spirit" from the text; hence we 
will drop these words out of the argument. The state- 
ment that Christ was " filled with wisdom," and that he 
"increased in wisdom," could not be predicated of the 
Divinity of Christ, for the wisdom of the Divine nature is 
infinite, and can not become either less or greater. These 
statements can not be predicated of the body, for it does 
not possess any wisdom, and can neither acquire it nor 
lose it. These statements prove the existence of Christ's 
human soul; which, because it was a finite intelligence, 
could grow in wisdom, and because it was pure, was filled 
with wisdom. Jesus "had a true human soul, as well as 
body. He was a genuine natural child, infant, and boy." 
(Whedon.) 

The fact that Jesus increased "in favor with God" can 
not be predicated of his Divine nature; for it is not possi- 
ble that the mutual love of the Son and of the Father for 
each other could either increase or diminish. It must 
have always been infinite, and admitted of no fluctuations. 



THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 173 

This increase "in favor with God" could not have been 
predicated of his body aside from his human soul, for the 
body was not capable of developing any excellence that 
should challenge the favor of God. These words prove 
Christ to have had a human soul, for of it only could these 
statements have been true. If Jesus did not have a hu- 
man soul, then these words of the evangelist would seem 
to be destitute of meaning. 

Mark xiii, 32 : " But of that day and that hour knoweth no 
man ; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, 
but the Father." 

Here Christ denies that he knows the time of the gen- 
eral judgment. His ignorance of the time can not be 
affirmed of his Divinity, for his Divinity is unchangeably 
omniscient. If our Lord had not possessed any other na- 
ture than the Divine nature, he could not have been igno- 
rant "of that day," but he was ignorant "of that day;" 
hence must, in addition to his Divinity, have possessed a 
human soul which, in the limitations of its knowledge, was 
ignorant "of that day." 

Matthew viii, 10 : " When Jesus heard it, he marveled." 
Luke vii, 9. 

Mark vi, 6: "And he marveled because of their unbelief." 

Some translators have rendered Matt, viii, 10, and 
Luke vii, 9, "he was filled with admiration;" but in the 
Greek the verb is not in the middle, or passive, but in the 
active, voice, &&dufia<rev 9 and is properly rendered, " he 
marveled." There certainly was no admiration expressed 
in Mark vi, 6, for in that instance the cause of his marveling 
was " their unbelief." OaofidZo), in the sense of " marvel," 
is never spoken of the supreme Divinity, either in the 
Old Testament or in the New Testament. Marveling is 
caused by some unexpected event ; but to the supreme 
Divinity nothing can be unexpected, hence Divinity does 
not marvel. Again, marveling is not done by the body, 



174 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

it is done by a human soul ; hence the fact that Christ 
"marveled" proves that he had a human soul. 

Matthew xxvi, 38: " My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even 
unto death." 

The sorrow here mentioned was of that crushing, 
deadly nature which forbids us predicating it of the Di- 
vinity. There is to be observed a reference to the words 
of David, "Why art thou cast down, O my soul?" 
(Ps. xlii, 5.) "So that it doth not only signify an excess 
of sorrow surrounding and encompassing the soul, but also 
such as brings a consternation and dejection of mind, bow- 
ing the soul under the pressure and burden of it." (Pear- 
son on the Creed, p. 288, note.) 

Christ predicates this sorrow of his soul, "My soul is 
exceeding sorrowful." "It is the human soul, the seat of 
the affections and passions, which is troubled with the 
anguish of the body; and it is distinguished from the 
xveufia, the higher spiritual being." (Alford, in loco.) 
"Jesus, then, had a purely human soul. The doctrine of 
the Monophysites, that he had only a human body, of 
which God was the only soul, is not true." (Whedon, 
in loco.) 

Acts x, 38 : " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the 
Holy Ghost." 

Similar declarations are made concerning Christ in 
Matt, iii, 16 ; Luke iv, 18 ; John i, 32, 33 ; Acts iv, 27 ; 
Hebrews, i, 9. This anointing of Christ by the Holy 
Spirit had been promised in the days of Isaiah. "And 
the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of 
wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, 
the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. And he 
shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the 
Lord." (Isa. xi, 2, 3.) This gift of the Holy Spirit could not 
have been made to Christ's Divine nature ; for in his Divinity 
he himself sends the Holy Spirit. (Luke xxiv, 49 ; John 



THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 175 

xv, 26 ; xvi, 7; xx, 22 ; Acts i, 4, 5; ii, 33.) As God, he 
*ends the Holy Spirit; as a man, he receives it from the 
Father. It is the human spirit that receives the Holy 
Spirit. " There is a spirit in man ; and the inspiration of 
the Almighty giveth them understanding." (Job xxxii, 8.) 
It follows that it was the humanity of Christ that received 
the Holy Spirit from God the Father. 

Pkayers Offered by Jesus. — Matt, xiv, 23; xxvi, 
36-39, 42, 44 ; Mark, i, 35 ; vi, 46 ; xiv, 32, 35, 39 ; Luke 
iii, 21 ; v, 16 ; vi, 12 ; ix, 18, 28, 29 ; xi, 1 ; xii, 32, 41, 44. 
Prayer implies want, dependence upon a superior, and the 
asking of help from that superior. It is not possible that 
the Divine nature should be in want, or that it should be 
helpless, or need to ask help. Nor is there any being su- 
perior to the Divinity from whom the Divinity could ask 
help ; hence it was not the Divine nature of Christ that 
prayed. Prayer is an act of the human soul. The soul 
has wants; it is dependent upon a superior, upon God, who 
can help it. Christ's prayers prove that lie had a hu- 
man soul. 

Hebrews v, 8, 9 : " Though he were a Son, yet learned he 
obedience by the things which he suffered ; and being made 
perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all that 
obey him." 

In this text Christ is said to have " learned," and to 
have " learned obedience." Each of these items proves 
the proper humanity of Christ. He is said to have 
learned: " Yet learned he obedience." This could not be 
said of Christ as God, for to learn is to increase knowl- 
edge ; but God is omniscient, hence his knowledge can 
not be increased. Again, "obedience" is submission to, 
and compliance with, authority. These things can not be 
predicated of God ; there is no superior to whom he can 
submit and with whose authority he can comply. A hu- 
man soul can increase its knowledge ; it can learn ; it can 
submit to a superior, and comply with its authority ; it can 



176 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

" learn obedience." Jesus Christ "learned obedience;" 
Jesus Christ had a human soul. 

Luke xxiii, 46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud 
voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit ; 
and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." 

Prayers similar to this one have been offered by Da- 
vid and Stephen. David, in great distress said: "Into 
thy hands I commit my spirit." (Psalm xxxi, 5.) Ste- 
phen, when dying, said : " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 
(Acts vii, 59.) Such words, proceeding from Divinity, 
would be unintelligible; but they are easily understood, 
and very proper, when coming from a human soul. Com- 
ing from Christ, they are the natural and reasonable ex- 
pression of his soul in his dying hour. The words, "He 
gave up the ghost," are mentioned in connection with the 
death of Christ in four other places besides the text : 
Matthew xxvii, 50; Mark xv, 37, 39; John xix, 30. 
These texts are not exactly alike in the Greek, but the 
differences are so slight that they do not affect the mat- 
ter now under discussion. In the Old Testament the same 
or similar expressions occur in Gen. xxv, 8, 17, 29 ; xlix, 
Job x, 18 ; xi, 20 ; xiv, 10 ; Jer. xv, 9 ; Lam. i, 19 ; 
Acts v, 5, 10; xii, 23. In each of these places these 
words note the departure of the human soul from the 
body in death. These words coming from the lips of 
Christ, it would seem impossible to give them a reason- 
able explanation without admitting that he had a hu- 
man soul. 

Hebrews iv, 15 : " For we have not a high priest which 
can not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities : but was 
in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." 

See also Matt, iv, 1-11; Mark i, 13; Luke iv, 1-13; 
John xiv, 30. Christ was tempted. It could not be his 
Divinity that was tempted; for although the Divinity has 
the power to do evil, yet the union of its infinite knowledge 
and wisdom with its perfect purity renders it impossible 



THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 177 

to present to the Divinity any inducement to sin. This 
conclusion is sustained by James i, 13: "God can not 
be tempted with evil." " There is nothing in him that 
has a tendency to wrong ; there can be nothing presented 
from without to induce him to do wrong : (1) There is no 
evil passion to be gratified, as there is in man ; (2) there 
is no want of power, so that an allurement could be pre- 
sented to seek what he has not; (3) there is no want of 
wealth, for he has infinite resources, and all that there is 
or can be is his (Ps. 1, 10, 11) ; (4) there is no want of 
happiness that he should seek happiness in sources which 
are not now in his possession. Nothing, therefore, could 
be presented to the Divine mind as an inducement to do 
evil." (Barnes on James.) 

It could not be Christ's fleshly body that was tempted, 
for intellect only can be the subject of temptation ; hence 
the temptation of Christ furnishes conclusive evidence 
that he had a human soul. An examination of the temp- 
tations mentioned by Matthew puts this conclusion beyond 
all doubt. The first temptation was a suggestion that Christ 
should turn stones into bread, in order that he might ap- 
pease the cravings of hunger. The second temptation was 
a suggestion to a presumptuous trust in God's providence. 
The third temptation was a suggestion to worship Satan, 
in order to obtain power. Surely these temptations were 
not addressed to Divinity. Divinity hungry and tempted 
to appease its own hunger; Divinity tempted to a pre- 
sumptuous trust in Divine Providence ; the Lord of 
heaven and earth tempted to worship Satan by an offer of 
earthly dominion ! The mere mention of such a notion 
breaks down with pure excess of absurdity. Christ's 
human soul was tempted to appease the hunger of the 
body with which it was associated and which it inhabited. 
His human soul was tempted to a presumptuous trust in 
Divine Providence. His human soul was tempted by an 
offer of human power and glory. Deny that Christ had a 



178 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

human soul, and the narrative is perfectly emasculated; 
accept the truth of Christ's proper humanity, and the nar- 
rative is rational and of thrilling interest. 

THE UNION OF DEITY AND HUMANITY IN CHRIST. 

In discussing " the union of Deity and humanity in 
Christ," it is not intended to make any new statement of 
the doctrine, but to state and defend it as it has been 
accepted and taught by the Christian Church from the 
days of the apostles down to the present time. In accord- 
ance with this design, the doctrine will be stated in the 
words of the " Articles of Religion of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church," Article II: "The Son, who is the Word 
of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance 
with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the 
blessed Virgin ; so that two whole and perfect natures — 
that is to say, the Godhead and manhood — were joined 
together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is 
one Christ, very God and very man." 

"These two circumstances, the completeness of each 
nature and the union of both in one person, is the only 
key to the language of the New Testament, and so entirely 
explains and harmonizes the whole as to afford the strongest 
proof, next to its explicit verbal statements, of the doc- 
trine that our Lord is at once truly God and truly man. 
On the other hand, the impracticability of giving a con- 
sistent explanation of the testimony of God ' concerning 
his Son Jesus Christ ' on all other hypotheses, entirely con- 
futes them. In one of two ways only will it be found, by 
every one who makes the trial honestly, that all the pas- 
sages of Holy Writ can be explained, either by referring 
them, according to rule of the ancient fathers, to the 
HeoXoyla, by which they meant everything that related to 
the Divinity of the Savior, or to the ohovopAa, by which 
they meant his incarnation and everything that he did in 
the flesh to procure the salvation of mankind. This dis- 



DEITY AND HUMANITY UNITED. 179 

tinetion is expressed in modern theological language by 
considering some things which are spoken of Christ as 
said of his Divine, others of his human, nature; and he 
who takes this principle of interpretation along with him 
will seldom find any difficulty in apprehending the sense 
of the sacred writers, though the subjects themselves be 
often to human minds inscrutable. 

"Does any one ask, for instance, If Jesus Christ was 
truly God, how could he be born and die? how could he 
grow in wisdom and stature? how could he be subject to 
law, be tempted, stand in need of prayer? how could his 
soul be * exceeding sorrowful even unto death/ be ' for- 
saken of his Father/ purchase the Church with ' his own 
blood/ have a 'joy set before him/ be exalted, have 'all 
power in heaven and earth given to him V etc. The an- 
swer is, that he was also man. If, on the other hand, it be 
a matter of surprise that a visible man should heal diseases 
at his will, and without referring to any higher authority, 
as he often did ; still the winds and the waves, know the 
thoughts of men's hearts, foresee his own passion in all its 
circumstances, authoritatively forgive sins, be exalted to 
absolute dominion over every creature in heaven and earth, 
be present wherever two or three are gathered in his name, 
be with his disciples to the end of the world, claim uni- 
versal homage and the bowing of the knee of all creatures 
to his name, be associated with the Father in solemn as- 
criptions of glory and thanksgiving, and bear even the 
awful names of God — names of description and revela- 
tion, names which express Divine attributes, — what is the 
answer?" 

Can the Unitarian scheme, which allows him to be a 
creature only, produce a reply? "Can it furnish a rea- 
sonable interpretation of texts of Sacred Writ which af- 
firm all these things? Can it suggest any solution which 
does not imply that the sacred penmen were not only care- 
less writers, but writers who, if tkey had studied to be 



180 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

misunderstood, could not more delusively have expressed 
themselves? The only hypothesis explanatory of all these 
statements is, that Christ is God as well as man; and by 
this the consistency of the sacred writers is brought out, 
and a harmonizing strain of sentiment is seen, compacting 
the Scriptures into one agreeing and mutually adjusted 
revelation." (Watson's Institutes, Vol. I, pp 618, 619.) 

In proof of the union of Deity and humanity in Christ, 
the following Scriptures are adduced: 

Isaiah ix, 6 : " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is 
given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder : and 
his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty 
God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." 

For previous discussions of this text, see pages 70-72, 114. 
In this text the humanity of Christ is set forth by the 
words "a child is born," "a son is given;" while his Deity 
is unequivocally asserted in the titles "Mighty God," 
"Everlasting Father." "It can not be maintained that 
this is all true of any one nature. It can not all be true 
of a being wholly divine, because he never could have 
been a child. It can not all be true of a human being, 
because he could not be called ' The Mighty God ;' nor 
could it be true of an angel, for no angel was ever a 
' child born.'" (Lee.) It was true of Jesus Christ — he 
" was God," and yet he " became flesh, and dwelt 
among us." 

Matthew xxii, 41-46: "While the Pharisees were gath- 
ered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of 
Christ ? whose son is he ? They say unto him, The son of 
David ? He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit 
call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou 
on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool ? If 
David then call him Lord, how is he his son ? And no man 
was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from 
that day forth ask him any more questions." 

Unitarians intimate that Christ's reference to this 
Psalm is merely an "argurnentum ex concessit" or from the 



DEITY AND HUMANITY UNITED. 181 

acknowledged opinion of his opponents, without vouching 
for its correctness. But this will not bear examination. 
If the opinion of the Pharisees concerning David's words 
was erroneous, the argument of Christ, built upon that 
opinion, must also be erroneous. A reference to the text 
and the parallel places (Mark xii, 36, 37; Luke xx, 
42, 43), will show that Christ does not make any reference 
to the opinion of the Pharisees concerning David's words ; 
but in the most positive manner asserts that " David there- 
fore himself calleth him Lord." Peter, also, at Pentecost 
(Acts ii, 34-36) quotes the same words as referring directly 
to Christ. 

Unitarians argue that "Jehovah being thus, in a pe- 
culiar sense, the Supreme King of Israel, the throne of 
Judea was called the throne of Jehovah (see 1 Chron. 
xxix, 23), and the human king of Israel is said to sit on 
the throne of Jehovah; i e., at the right hand of Jehovah." 
It is true that Jehovah was the Supreme King of Israel, 
and that the throne of Judea was called "the throne of 
Jehovah;" but it is not tr-ue that sitting on the throne of 
Judea was ever designated as "sitting at the right hand 
of Jehovah." From time to time a number of Jewish 
kings sat down on the throne at Jerusalem, but only 
Christ has sat down at the right hand of Jehovah. The 
fact of Christ's sitting at the right hand of the Father is 
regarded by the Spirit of inspiration as of great impor- 
tance, for it is frequently mentioned in the New Testa- 
ment. (Mark xiv, 62 ; xvi, 19 ; Luke xx, 42 ; xxii, 69 ; 
Acts ii, 34; vii, 55, 56; Kom. viii, 34; Eph. i, 20 ; Col. 
iii, 1; Heb. i, 3; viii, 1; x, 12 ; xii, 2; 1 Peter iii, 22.) 
"This was an honor never given, never promised, to any 
man but the Messias ; the glorious spirits stand about the 
throne of God, but never any of them sat down at the 
right hand of God. ' For to which of the angels said he 
at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine en- 
emies thy footstool?' (Heb. i, 13.)" (Pearson on the 



182 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Creed, p. 416.) This settles the fact that the "Lord" 
("Adon") whom Jehovah asked to sit at his right hand, 
was not any mere temporal prince of that day, but Christ. 
This proves the pre-existence of Christ. He is addressed by 
the title " Lord " (Adon) ; while this term is used in the his- 
torical books to designate a temporal lord or master, in the 
Psalms it not unfrequently designates Supreme Deity. Wit- 
ness the following instances of its use : " O Lord, our Lord 
[Adon], how excellent is thy name in all the. earth! who 
hast set thy glory above the heavens." " The Lord [Adon] 
of the whole earth." " At the presence of the Lord [Adon], 
at the presence of the God of Jacob." " Our Lord [Adon] 
is above all gods." " Great is our Lord [Adon], and of 
great power : his understanding is infinite." (Psalms viii, 
1, 9; xcvii, 5; cxiv, 7 ; cxxxv, 5 ; clvii, 5. See also Isa. 
i, 24; iii, 1; x, 16, 33; li, 22; Micah iv, 13; Zech. iv, 
14; vi, 5; Mai. iii, 1.) " Adon" "is a term implying an 
acknowledgment of superiority in the person to whom it 
was addressed, and therefore never given to inferiors; 
though sometimes, perhaps out of courtesy, to equals. 
Upon this, then, our Lord's argument turns. An inde- 
pendent monarch, such as David, acknowledged no lord 
or master but God ; far less would he bestow that title 
upon a son, or descendant ; and consequently the Messiah, 
being so called by him under the influence of the Spirit, 
and therefore acknowledged as his superior, must be Di- 
vine." (Campbell.) 

"According to the flesh," Christ was David's son; ac- 
cording to "the Spirit of holiness," Christ was David's 
Lord. 

"Now, here is a question asked by our Lord which no 
one in heaven nor on earth can answer, if Jesus was not 
possessed of two natures: * If David then call him Lord, 
how is he his son?' This question can be answered only 
by admitting the two natures of Christ." (Lee.) 

How could Christ "be both David's Lord and David's 



DEITY AND HUMANITY UNITED. 183 

sou? No son is lord to his father; therefore, if Christ 
were David's Sovereign, he must be more than man — more 
than David's son. As man, so lie was David's son; as 
God-man, so he was David's Lord." "Although Christ 
was really and truly man, yet he was more than a bare 
man ; he was Lord unto, and was the salvation of, his own 
forefathers." (Burkitt.) 

John i, 14: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt 
among us." 

We have already seen that "the Word" was a per- 
sonal being, in union with the Father, eternal, Creator of 
all things, and the Author of life. This Divine Word be- 
came a man, and dwelt among men, the possessor of a 
dual nature, the Logos or Deity, and the flesh, or hu- 
manity. The judicious Hooker sums up the whole doc- 
trine of the union of Deity and humanity in Christ in four 
words, "Truly, perfectly, indi visibly, distinctly;" truly 
God, perfectly man, indivisibly one person, distinctly two 
natures. (Book V, ch. liv, 10.) 

Romans i, 3, 4 : " Concerning his Son, Jesus Christ our 
Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the 
flesh ; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according 
to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." 

As God, this passage calls Christ "the Son of God," 
" Our Lord," and "the Spirit of Holiness;" as a man, it 
speaks of him as being "made," as being "of the seed 
of David," as being of " the flesh," as having been " dead," 
and as having raised from "the dead." See also Romans 
ix, 5, where the apostle says that Christ "is over all, God 
blessed forever;" and yet in his humanity he came in 
"the flesh." 

1 Timothy hi, 16 : " God was manifest in the flesh, justified 
in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, be- 
lieved on in the world, received up into glory." 

The union of the two natures is established by the 
fact that Jesus Christ was God ; that he was God made 



184 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

visible; that he was God visible in the flesh, that is, in a 
man ; that in the life of Jesus Christ perfect Divinity and 
perfect manhood were alike visible. 

Hebrews i, 3 : " Who being the brightness of his glory, and 
the express image of his person, and upholding all things by 
the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our 
sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." 

To this passage " the Hypostatical union is the only 
key. Of whom does the apostle speak when he says, 
'When he had by himself' purged our sins, but of him 
who is ' the brightness of his glory and the express image 
of his person V He by himself ' purged our sins ;' yet 
this was done by the shedding of his blood. In that higher 
nature, however, he could not suffer death ; and nothing 
could make the sufferings of his humanity a purification 
of sins by himself but such a union as should constitute 
one person ; for unless this be allowed, either the charac- 
ters of divinity in the preceding verses are characters of 
a merely human being, or else that higher nature was ca- 
pable of suffering death ; or, if not, the purification was 
not made by himself, which yet the text affirms." 
(Watsou.) 

John xi, 4-45. 

The narrative of the resurrection of Lazarus furnishes 
ample proof of the union of Deity and humanity in Christ. 

1. He displays such foreknowledge as is possessed only by 
Supreme Deity. When he hears of the sickness of Laz- 
arus, he tells the disciples that "this sickness is not unto 
death." (Verse 4.) Lazarus died, but was restored to 
life again. Christ foresaw that life ; he saw it through the 
shade of intervening death and the grave. Again, al- 
though Lazarus was in Bethany, while Christ was on the 
other side of the Jordan, yet he knew that Lazarus was 
dead, and he told it to his disciples. Again, while Jesus 
was standing at the grave of Lazarus he said, "Father, 
I thank thee that thou hast heard me," thus evincing a 



DEITY AND HUMANITY UN I TED. 185 

knowledge of the thoughts of the Eternal Father — a knowl- 
edge of those secrets known only to the Godhead. This 
knowledge of the Divine mind is in perfect harmony with 
the declaration, " Neither knoweth any man the Father 
save the Son." (Matt, xi, 27.) Again, notice his claim 
to share with the Father the glory that would arise out 
of the event. "This sickness is not unto death, but for 
the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified 
thereby." Surely no mere man, angel, nor archangel, 
could make such a speech ; yet Christ makes it, and that, 
too, without sin. It can be explained only by his own 
words, "I and the Father are one." Once more, notice 
his claim to be the author of the resurrection and of eter- 
nal life: " I am the resurrection and the life: he that be- 
lie veth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live : 
and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." 
Wonderful as this claim is, he verifies it by calling Laz- 
arus back to life again. Surely these speeches and this 
miracle prove Jesus Christ to be the Almighty God. 

2. But the proofs of his humanity are just as positive. 
He was a personal friend of Lazarus ; the Jews had sought 
to stone him; his disciples judged him to be in danger of 
being killed. " Let us also go that we may die with him ;" 
"he groaned in the spirit;" "was troubled;" he "wept;" 
he calls himself "a man." (Verse 9.) These proofs of 
his humanity need no comment; and yet this was the 
same person who foretold the end of Lazarus's sickness, 
read the mind of the Father, claimed to be the author of 
the resurrection and of eternal life, and who raised Laza- 
rus from the dead. The only explanation of such a per- 
son is, that he has two natures, humanity and Divinity. 

Philippians ii, 5-7 : " Let this mind be in you, which was 
also in Christ Jesus : who being in the form of God, thought it 
not robbery to be equal with God : but made himself of no rep- 
utation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made 
in the likeness of men." 

16 



186 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

In the examination of this text it is necessary to make 
a preliminary examination of some of the clauses and words 
found in it. 

And first, " '£v p°P9y Oeou." These words designate 
something that belonged to Christ before he ' ' took upon 
him the form of a servant;" something that he " emptied 
himself" of when he ' ' took upon him the form of a serv- 
ant." The fact that Christ once existed " in the form of 
God," and the fact that "he emptied himself" of it, will 
help us to determine what ' ' the form of God " means. 
These words do not mean Christ's power to work miracles; 
for this power he exercised frequently during the three 
years of his ministry. They do not mean his essential at- 
tributes of Deity ; he often manifested both his omniscience 
and omnipotence. They do not mean his sovereign au- 
thority ; for he rebuked both men and demons, compelled 
demons to do his bidding ; he also claimed and exercised 
authority to forgive sin. These words do not mean his 
claim to Supreme Deity; Christ never relinquished this; 
on the contrary, he often asserted it. He said: "Before 
Abraham was, I am" (John viii, 58); "As the Father 
knoweth me, even so know I the Father" (John x, 15); 
" I and the Father are one" (John x, 30) ; " He that hath 
seen me hath seen the Father" (John xiv, 9). The fore- 
going facts and Scriptures prove that our Lord did not 
"empty himself" of his Supreme Deity, even if such a 
thing were possible. 

While it is true that "no man hath seen God at any 
time," yet it is also true that God, in past times, had made 
known his presence to men by a manifestation of glory 
that w 7 ould create in the mind of the beholder a profound 
impression of the Divine Majesty. In Exodus xxxiii, 15, 
this manifestation of the Divine glory is called " thy pres- 
ence ;" in Numbers xii, 8, it is called " the similitude of 
the Lord ;" in Deuteronomy v, 24, in Psalm xxxi, 16, 
"thy face;" in John v, 37, "his shape." This manifes- 



DEITY AND HUMANITY UNITED. 187 

tation of the Divine glory Christ emptied himself of when 
4 'he took upon him the form of a servant." He momen- 
tarily resumed this " form of God " at the time of his trans- 
figuration ; and his resumption of the " form of God" at 
the transfiguration is expressed by the word p.£T£p.op<pw$7). 
(Matt, xvii, 2.) Deity can exist without this "form;" 
but only Deity can exist in this " form." It is the fact 
that Christ exists in this " form " that makes him "equal 
with God." Christ had this glorious "form" in common 
with the Father, " before the world was." (John xvii, 5.) 
When Christ "became flesh" he emptied himself of this 
" form," in order that he might take " upon him the form 
of a servant." While Christ existed "in the form of 
God," he was properly "equal with God." 

Unitarians object that " the Trinitarian exposition of 
this text is a mere reductio ad absurdum of the apostle's 
argument, since it makes him say that Christ, being God, 
thought it no robbery to be equal with himself." This ob- 
jection started with Socinus, and has been re-echoed by all 
Unitarians from the days of Socinus to the present time. 
"To this it may be answered that the Son may be equal 
to the Father in the unity of the Godhead, which is all 
that the apostle's language implies, and all that Trinitari- 
ans contend for. Nor can this be denied without begging 
the question, and denying that there is any distinction of 
persons in the unity of the Godhead." (Scott.) 

It will not help the cause of Unitarianism to render 
these words "to be even as, like as, God;" for they can 
not produce a solitary instance in which the words have 
such a meaning. Again, "since infinite attributes admit 
of no increase or diminution, he who is as God, or like as 
God, must be possessed of these attributes, and, conse- 
quently, possessed of every perfection entering into the 
very idea of God." (Holden.) 

The words opowq Oew — ''like as God, resembling 
God" — have been applied by Homer to kings, princes, 



188 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

and warriors ; but the words teov dec? have never been*ap- 
plied to any created being. On the contrary, the Jews 
said that it was blasphemy in Christ to make himself ttrou 
Sew. (John v, 18.) 

The word ' * robbery " — apizayfiov — calls for a passing 
notice. I think that the majority of modern Bible schol- 
ars agree that dp7zay/x6<; does not denote an action, but a 
thing. The Revised Version renders it "a prize;" in the 
margin, "a thing to be grasped." This rendering har- 
monizes with the exhortation in the preceding verses to 
avoid "vainglory," to cultivate "lowliness of mind," not 
to look on our "own things," but on "the things of 
others" for their advantage. The apostle enforces this ex- 
hortation by saying, "Let this mind be in you which was 
also in Christ Jesus." Christ, " being in the form of God, 
did not regard equality in state with God as a robber re- 
gards his booty — viz., as a thing to be clutched greedily, 
and held fast at all hazards — but emptied himself." (Bruce's 
Humiliation of Christ, p. 409.) 

If all the rest of the Bible were silent concerning the 
twofold nature of Christ, this text would set the matter 
forever at rest. His taking upon him " the form of a 
servant" proves that he existed before he became " a serv- 
ant," and at that time was not " a servant," but was "equal 
with God," and originally existed in his glorious "form." 
All the intelligent beings in the universe are divided into 
two parties : first, the Master, God ; second, his servants. 
There is no third party. Hence as Christ existed when 
he was not "a servant," he must be God. It is no an- 
swer to this to say that he was not God, but only the 
highest created intelligence. All created beings are serv- 
ants of the Most High. They may be rebellious "serv- 
ants," like "the devil and his angels," but still they are 
" servants." Now, if Christ never was anything but a crea- 
ture — no matter how glorious — then he always was "a 
servant;" but the fact that he originally existed "in the 



DEITY AND HUMANITY UNITED. 189 

form of God," and when so existing he " took upon him 
the form of a servant," proves that previous to that time 
he was not a servant, but was God. As a man he was in 
"the form of a servant," "and was made in the likeness 
of men." He was "found in fashion as a man." He 
" became obedient unto death." In "the form of God " our 
Lord was perfect God; in "the form of a servant" and 
the " fashion as a man," he was a perfect man — he was 
God " manifest in the flesh." 

Professor John Eadie closes a long discussion of the 
meaning of these words with the following sentences : 

"The insignia of Godhead were oft revealed in the 
olden time ; and we have what we take to be several de- 
scriptions of the form of God in Deut. xxxiii, 2 ; Psalm 
xviii, 6-15; Dan. vii, 9, 10; Hab. iii, 3-11. Such pas- 
sages, describing sublime tokens of a Theophany, afford a 
glimpse into the meaning of the phrase * form of God/ 
It is not the Divine nature, but the visible display of it, 
that which enables men to apprehend it and prompts them 
to adore it." 

Eadie writes further: "This meaning which we give 
to /JLopcprj is in harmony with the whole passage, and is not 
materially different from el'Soq. (John v, 37. See un- 
der Col. i, 15.) It stands here in contrast with the phrase 
f±op<prj\> dovkoo Xaficov. He exchanged the form of God for 
that of a servant — came from the highest point of dignity 
to the lowest in the social scale. And we are the more 
confirmed in our view because of the following verb, 
MvwffB, as this self-divestment plainly refers to the pre- 
vious fiopcpij. It can not mean Divinity itself; for surely 
Jesus never cast it off; but he laid aside the form of God, 
the splendor of Divinity, and not the nature of it — the 
glory of the Godhead, and not the essence of it. 
At the same time, while we think that the apostle selects 
with special care the term p.op(pr} as signifying something 
different from nature, we must hold that no one can be in 



190 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

the form of God without being in the nature of God, 
the exhibition of the form implying the nature of the 
essence." 

"The doctrine of the two natures of Christ may be 
urged from the fact that no other account can be given 
of his nature and character. The Scriptures declare him 
to be God and man, but they pronounce him nothing else. 
If he is not God and man, what is he? It will be said 
that he is the Son of God. But what is the Son of God ? 
Is he God, or is he a man? or is he neither? I press the 
question, What is he? If it be said that he was God, and 
not man, then God was once born a child, and grew, and 
lived, and died. If it be said that he was a man, and not 
God, then we have only a human savior, a human re- 
deemer, and a human intercessor, whose arm is but an 
arm of flesh. It is written : ' Cursed be the man that 
trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm/ (Jer. xvii, 
5.) But of Christ it is said: 'Blessed are all they that 
put their trust in him.' Now, put that and that together. 
If it be said that he was neither God nor man, what was 
he ? Was he an angel ? No ; for angels can not die. But 
admit that he was God and man, and all is plain, and we 
have a Savior worthy of everlasting trust — one to whom 
we can commit our souls without distrust or fear of being 
confounded." (Lee's Theology.) 

"The Scriptures speak of him as ' the Prince of Life/ 
who was ' killed' (Acts xiii, 15) ; ' the Lord of glory,' who 
was infamously ' crucified ' (1 Cor. ii, 8) ; 'the Lord' and 
the 'Son' (Matt, xxii, 45); ... the 'Lord of all' and 
the servant of men (Acts x, 36 ; Matt, xx, 28) ; ' the Word, 
which was God, and was made flesh' (John i, 1, 14); 
4 who was in the form of God, and was made in the like- 
ness of men' (Phil, ii, 6, 7) ; the Son of God and the Son 
of man ; the fellow of Jehovah and of men (Zech. xiii, 7 ; 
Heb. ii, 9) ; eternal, and yet beginning (Micah v, 2) ; 'hav- 
ing life in himself (John i, 4), and yet being dependent; 



OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 191 

< filling all in all/ and lying in manger (Eph. i, 23) ; ' know- 
ing all things/ and yet ignorant of some (John xxi, 17) ; 
1 almighty/ and yet ' crucified through weakness ' (Rev. i, 
8 ; 2 Cor. xiii, 4) ; always ' the same/ and yet undergo- 
ing many changes (Heb. i, 12); 'reigning forever/ and 
yet resigning the kingdom (Isaiah ix, 7 ; 1 Cor. xv, 
24) ; ' equal with God/ and yet subordinate (Phil, ii, 6, 
etc.); 'one' with God, and yet a Mediator between God 
and men (John x, 30 ; 1 Tim. ii, 5). Such sayings are 
apparent contradictions, and can be reconciled only on the 
Scripture hypothesis which ascribes to him the l fullness 
of the Godhead ' and ' the likeness of sinful flesh. '" (Hare's 
Socinianism, pp. 93, 94.) 

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE UNION OF 
DEITY AND HUMANITY IN CHRIST. 

Dr. Channing objects that " this doctrine of the dual 
nature of Christ renders our ideas of him obscure and 
misty." The doctrine defines Christ as being both God 
and man ; in this there is nothing either obscure or misty. 
It is cheerfully admitted that the dual nature of Christ is 
incomprehensible; but it is no more so than that of an 
Eternal Being, or of an Omnipresent Being, or of an Om- 
nipotent Being. The whole nature of Deity is incompre- 
hensible, and its union with humanity does not make it 
any more so. But does Dr. Channing better the matter 
when he makes his own statement concerning Christ's na- 
ture? Let us see: "We feel that a new being, of a new 
order of mind, is taking part in human affairs. There is 
a native tongue of grandeur and authority in his teach- 
ing. He speaks as a being related to the whole human 
race. His mind never shrinks within the ordinary limits 
of human agency." "A being such as never before and 
never since spoke in human language." "Truly, this was 
the Son of God." " I believe him to be a more than hu- 
man being. In truth, all Christians so believe him. 



192 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Those who suppose him not to have existed before his 
birth, do not regard him as a mere man, though so re- 
proached. They always separate him, by broad distinc- 
tions, from other men. They consider him as enjoying a 
communion with God, and as having received gifts, en- 
dowments, aids, light from him, granted to no other." 
" Jesus respected human nature ; he felt it to be his own." 
(Channing's Works, pp. 241, 243, 247, 250.) Eead the 
foregoing passages with the desire to determine what the 
whole nature of Christ is, and they will be found suffi- 
ciently " misty" for all practical purposes. 

Dr. Farley objects that " Divine and human qualities, 
as the essence of being, can not co-exist in the same per- 
son. God is infinite, man is finite ; and no being can be 
at once and essentially finite and infinite." (Unit. Def., 
p. 129.) This objection is liable to the criticism of being 
very ambiguous. It would have been well if the author 
of it had stated what he meant by " Divine and human 
qualities as the essence of being." If this phrase has any 
meaning I have failed to grasp it. If Dr. Farley means 
to deny that it was possible that Christ should possess the 
attributes of both Deity and humanity, then he is denying 
the well-known facts in the case. It has been fully proven 
that the sacred writers ascribed to Christ eternity, omni- 
presence, omniscience, and omnipotence, and have invested 
him with the titles of Supreme Deity. On the other 
hand, it has been shown that Christ was born in time, 
lived and died in time ; that there were some things that 
he did not know ; that he was hungry, and ate food ; 
thirsty, and drank ; was weary, and slept ; sorrowed, and 
wept like other men. In the face of these facts, Dr. Far- 
ley^ objection amounts to merely a questioning of the 
truth of God's Word. 

Again, Dr. Farley objects " that the Hypostatic union 
of the two natures in Christ charges him with duplicity," 
and quotes, in proof of his objection, Christ's denial of a 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 193 

knowledge of the judgment-day (Matt, xiii, 32); urging 
that if Christ was God, then he could not possibly be ig- 
norant of that day. Now, it must be evident to every 
candid reasoner that the doctrine of the Hypostatic union 
is the only ground on which this text can be explained, 
in perfect harmony with the integrity of Christ ; for it has 
been already proved that Christ knew the thoughts of 
men's hearts — that he was the ' ' heart-searcher " — that he 
knew the events of the future, and that he knew the se- 
crets of the Divine mind. This was omniscience in the 
full sense of the word, and such as marked Christ's Su- 
preme Deity. Now, if Christ had no other nature than 
that of Deity, then he must have known the time of the 
future general judgment. But we know Christ to have 
been a man, as well as God; and while as God he knew 
everything, as man there were some things which he did 
not know. 

THE PERSONALITY AND DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
The Doctrine Stated. 

The doctrine of the Personality and Deity of the Holy 
Spirit may be briefly stated thus: "The Holy Ghost, pro- 
ceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, 
majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and 
eternal Gcd." (Articles of Religion of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, Article IV.) 

The doctrine of "The Procession of the Holy Spirit" 
may be stated in these words: "Christ is God by an eter- 
nal filiation; so the Holy Spirit is God by an eternal pro- 
cession. He proceedeth from the Father and from the 
Son. . . . He is the Spirit of the Father, he is the 
Spirit of the Son ; he is sent by the Father, he is sent by 
the Son. The Father is never sent by the Son, but the 
Father sendeth the Son ; neither the Father nor the Son is 
ever sent by the Holy Spirit, but he is sent by both. The 

17 



194 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Nicene Creed teaches — ' And I believe in the Holy Ghost, 
the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the 
Father and the Son, who with the Father and the 
Son together is worshiped and glorified.' The Athanasian 
Creed — ' The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, 
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.' " 
The doctrine of "the Procession of the Holy Spirit" rests 
upon the following Scriptures: " When the Comforter is 
come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even 
the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he 
shall testify of me." (John xv, 26.) "It is not ye that 
speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in 
you." (Matt, x, 20.) "The things of God knoweth no 
man, but the Spirit of God. And we have received not 
the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God." 
(1 Cor. ii, 11, 12.) "God hath sent forth the Spirit of 
his Son into our hearts." (Gal. iv, 6.) "Now if any 
mac have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." 
(Rom. viii, 9.) "Even the Spirit of Christ, which w T as 
in the prophets." (1 Peter i, 11.) "I know that this 
shall turn to my salvation, through your prayer, and the 
supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." (Phil, i, 19.) "The 
Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will 
send." (John xiv, 26.) 

In the preceding paragraph I have stated the doctrine 
of "the Procession of the Holy Spirit," and have pointed 
out the Scriptures on which it rests ; farther than this I 
can not do, and my reasons for refusing to do more will 
be found in the following quotations : 

"No man can tell what 'proceeding from the Father 
means ;' it is equally unintelligible as is the generation of 
the Son. Attempts have been made to explain both 
terms ; but in doing so, ideas borrowed from material sub- 
stances have been generally applied to the incomprehen- 
sible nature of a spiritual being." Again: "We do not 
know what is the procession of the Spirit. Let us be 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 195 

sensible of our ignorance and acknowledge it, remembering 
that as this is our duty, so it is more honorable than to 
indulge in vain babbling, and to darken counsel by words 
without knowledge." (Dick's Theology, p. 181.) 

" It is obvious to remark that what is precisely in- 
tended by the term procession, as applied to the Spirit, 
can not be definitely and exhaustively stated. When it is 
said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, 
it is intended to make, on Scripture authority, an affirma- 
tion concerning the manner of the distinction subsisting 
between the persons of the Trinity. The quo modo, here 
as everywhere else, lies outside the purview of human sci- 
ence. We know no more of the procession of the Holy 
Spirit than we do of the generation of the Son ; we know 
nothing of either, beyond the Bible affirmation of the 
facts that the Son is begotten of the Father, and that the 
Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son." (Ray- 
mond's Theology, Vol. I, p. 485.) 

Scriptural Proofs of the Doctrine. 

The proofs of the personality of the Holy Spirit and of 
the Deity of the Holy Spirit are so closely united that it 
is almost impossible to discuss them separately. I will in- 
troduce them in two classes. In the first class the evi- 
dences will be mainly in proof of the personality of the 
Holy Spirit ; whatever proof this class may furnish to the 
Deity of the Holy Spirit will be a secondary matter. In 
the second class the evidence will be in positive proof of 
the Deity of the Holy Spirit. 

Class I. Proof of the Personality of the Holy 

Spirit. 

The personality of the Holy Spirit is proven by the 
fact that creation is attributed to him. 

Genesis i, 2 : "And the earth was without form, and void ; 
and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit 
of God moved upon the face of the water." 



196 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

The word " moved," ^D*?? (merakhepheth) , is the fem- 
inine Piel participle of ^H? (rakhapli). It occurs in the 
Bible but three times, — once in Kal, Jer. xxiii, 9, "All 
my bones shake-" once in Piel, in the text; and once in 
Piel, in Deut. xxxii, 11, "As an eagle . . . fluttereth 
over her young." It designates a personal action, which 
can not appropriately be predicated of a lifeless instru- 
ment. That the moving of the Holy Spirit on the chaotic 
mass may have been accompanied by " a rushing mighty 
w T ind," as it seemed to be at Pentecost (Acts ii, 2), is not 
improbable. But in neither case was the wind the agent, 
but only the accompaniment of the real agent, the Holy 
Spirit. 

" Spirit," D^*") (ruakh), is here a definite noun, by being 
in the construct state before the definite noun D'rflN (Elo- 
Mm). Gesenius (who will not be accused of any undue 
partiality to the doctrine of the Trinity) says of the word 
"moved:" "Trop., of the Spirit of God as thus brooding 
over and vivifying the chaotic mass of the earth." Crea- 
tion is here attributed to the Holy Spirit; but creation is 
the work of a person. A personal Creator must be om- 
nipotent, hence must be God; the Holy Spirit is a Person, 
and is God. 

In perfect harmony with the preceding are the words 
of Elihu : 

Job xxxiii, 4: "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the 
breath of the Almighty hath given me life." 

This is a very pointed allusion to Genesis ii, 7: "And 
the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and 
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life : and man be- 
came a living soul." In this speech of Elihu's we have 
both the instrument of creation, "the breath of the Al- 
mighty," and the agent or Creator, " the Spirit of God." 
" The Spirit of God" and "the Almighty" are associated 
together as co-workers in creation, thus establishing the 
personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit. 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 197 

The Holy Spirit was the inspiring agent of the prophets 
and apostles. 

Genesis vi, 3 : "And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not al- 
ways strive with man." 

The most obvious and natural view of this text is that 
which recognizes three parties in it. First, the person 
speaking, "The Lord said;" second, the author of the 
striving, "My Spirit shall not always strive;" and third, 
"man," with whom the striving is done. The Spirit here 
is not to be confounded with the Father, who speaks. If 
he had been referring to himself he would most probably 
have said: "I will not always strive," etc.; on the con- 
trary, he clearly distinguishes between himself and his 
Spirit. The word "p"! " doon" here rendered "strive," 
does not occur anywhere else in the Bible ; its root and 
meaning are very obscure. The Septuagint, Vulgate, 
Syriac, and Arabic versions all render it by, " Shall 
not dwell in man." Gesenius seems to favor this render- 
ing. This is in harmony with the New Testament doctrine 
of the Holy Spirit being sent by God to convict men, 
cause them to be born again, and to dwell in them. 

This work of the Holy Spirit is accomplished in two 
ways. 1. Immediately, directly, by personal contact with 
the human spirit. 2. Mediately, through the agency of 
men whom he commissions and inspires. Thus : 

2 Peter i, 21 : " For the prophecy came not in old time by 
the will of man : but holy men of God spake as they were 
moved by the Holy Ghost." 

" For no prophecy ever came by the will of man : but men 
spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost." (Revised 
Version.) 

Tischendorf renders the text in a similar manner. Here 
again we have the same three parties as before, — God, 
from whom the prophecy came ; the men, who spoke the 
prophecy ; and the Holy Spirit, who moved the men to 
speak. It would be a very awkward exegesis to make the 



198 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Holy Spirit identical with the Father, mentioned in the 
preceding part of the verse. It would be absurd to speak 
of men being moved by an attribute. The most natural 
exegesis of the text is that which makes the Holy Spirit 
the personal agent of the Father. In 1 Peter i, 11, the 
Spirit which -moved these men is called "the Spirit of 
Christ;" that is, "the Spirit which resided in and pro- 
ceeded from Christ was the teacher of the prophets." 
(Whitelaw's Divinity of Jesus, p. 20.) 

This destroys the notion that the Holy Spirit is merely 
the influence of the Father. Those who deny Christ to 
be God will surely not call the Holy Spirit the joint in- 
fluence of the Eternal God and of a creature. On the 
Biblical doctrine of a Triune Deity, Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit, and of the farther Biblical fact that the Father 
and the Son both sent the Spirit to inspire the prophets 
and apostles, these two texts easily and naturally harmo- 
nize. The authors of " The Improved Version" have a 
foot-note to this last text (1 Peter i, 11): "The Spirit 
which prophesied concerning Christ." Seeming to be 
doubtful of the propriety of this note, they added another : 
"The Spirit of an ' anointed one/ or ' prophet.'" These 
notes are very properly characterized by Watson as "gra- 
tuitous and unwarranted paraphrases." 

"Prophecy had no human author. It was not borne 
to the prophet or to men by the will of himself or of any 
man. He was simply the instrument in delivering it. 
Holy men of God, — they were called to a holy office and 
used in a holy work; besides which they were, as a rule, 
holy in character and life. But holiness does not consti- 
tute a prophet. They spake, being borne by the Holy 
Ghost. He was sole author ; their minds and speech were 
taken possession of, and borne along by his might, and 
made to utter, under his impulse, whatsoever he pleased, 
whether they at the time understood it or not." (Whe- 
don's Com.) 



THE HOL Y SPIRIT. 199 

John xvi, 13 : " Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is 
come, he will guide you into all truth : for he shall not speak 
of himself ; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak : 
and he will show you things to come." 

The Holy Spirit is here termed " the Spirit of truth." 
That it is neither an attribute nor an influence, but a per- 
son, is evident from the things predicated of him. Thus he 
is said to "guide into all truth" (" l He shall guide you 
iuto the entire truth, embracing the many things at pres- 
ent withheld from you/ verse 12" — Green's New Test. 
Gram. p. 57); "to speak;" to speak "not of himself," 
but of what "he shall hear;" and to "shew" "things to 
come." Hearing, speech, guiding, and revealing are not 
to be predicated of any attribute or influence, but only of 
a person. What attribute, influence, or doctrine can here 
be personified? When did any Bible speaker or writer 
use so crude, so monstrous a figure as " an attribute, or in- 
fluence, or doctrine, not speaking of himself, but speaking 
what he shall hear ?" 

Norton, in his "Translation of the Gospels" (Vol. II, 
p. 448), says this text is throughout figurative, and con- 
sequently does not admit of being taken in a literal sense. 
It is a common thing with Unitarian writers to dispose of 
a troublesome text by calling it " figurative." This is not 
interpretation, but mere licentiousness. The great mass 
of all language is literal in its acceptation ; figurative lan- 
guage is the exception to the rule. "The words of Scrip- 
ture must be taken in their common meaning, unless such 
meaning is shown to be inconsistent with other words in the 
sentence, with the argument or context, or with other parts of 
Scripture." (Angus, Bible Hand-book, p. 210.) Tried by 
this rule, the assertion that the text is figurative will prove to 
be a purely gratuitous assumption. Norton assumes that the 
term "Spirit" means simply an influence, and then, because 
this meaning conflicts with the literal rendering of the rest of 
the text, he assumes all of the rest to be figurative also. Let 



200 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

the term "Spirit" be understood as meaning an intelligent 
person, and it makes plain, easy sense of the rest of the 
verse. Norton defines the words " the Spirit of truth "as 
meaning " the knowledge and belief of the essential truths 
taught by" Christ. " Knowledge" and " belief" have no 
existence separate from the being or person who knows and 
who believes ; they are merely states and actions of the mind. 
Yet Mr. Norton would have us believe that these nonenti- 
ties are "the Spirit of truth," and that they "hear," 
"speak" "guide," and "shew things to come." Take the 
text in its literal sense, and all of this confusion is avoided. 
Accept of the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the 
text becomes a clear, plain statement of his mission. 

The Holy Spirit the Source and Fountain of Life. 

Romans viii, 11 : " He that raised up Christ from the dead 
shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth 
in you." 

There is considerable controversy about the reading of 
the last clause of the text. If the proper reading is did 
too hoizoovroq abroo IJveu/j.aTo^ (this is the reading of the 
Textus Receptus, of Hodge, De Wette, Shedd, also West- 
cott and Hort), then the Holy Spirit is the personal agent 
who "quickens" "our 'mortal bodies;" and the English 
translation is right in saying "shall also quicken your 
mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Tisch- 
endorf, Tholuck, Lange, Schaff, Vaughan, and Alford, 
have adopted the reading did to hoixouv clutou IJveujuLa; but 
this does not necessarily demand any alteration in the 
English Version ; for while did with the accusative gener- 
ally means " for the reason of," " because of," or " for the 
sake of," yet it is often used to designate the efficient agent. 
Pickering, in his Greeek Lexicon, says, sub voce: "With 
an accusative case, it denotes the cause, manner, and 
instrument by or through which anything is done, as 
ou di y tfii, not through me; i. e., not through my fault (De- 






THE HOL Y SPIRIT. 201 

mosthenes de Corona) ; d£ tzetvov, by him, through his 
means (Dionysius Halicarnensis) ; el p-q di' £/jJ, if it had 
not been for me, if I had not prevented ; it frq di 6/y.ag, if 
it had not been for you; i. e., but for you (Demosth.) ; dtd 
fiouXds Atoq, according to the will of Jove (Odys. viii, 82)." 
The following instances of did with the accusative, denot- 
ing causal agency, may be satisfactory to the student: 
Kcu dC 7)[j.aq gov d-toTq h/jre rvjvde ttjv ywp&v. By US, with the 
gods, ye have the country; i. e., u Ye have by us, with the 
help of the gods, got possession of the country." (Xe- 
nophon's Anab. vii, 7, 7.) Nov iycb goo dio/iac df i/ioo 
aTTodtdovat, "I now beg you to make the payment through 
me; i. e., " by my hands." (Xenoph. Anab. vii, 7, 49.) 
Nw7 t <Tai dt 'Aftvjvyv, to conquer by Athens; i. e., "by the 
citizens of Athens." (Od. 0, 520.) The foregoing quota- 
tion is taken from Jelf 's Greek Grammar, § 627, ii, 3, c, 
where Jelf introduces it by saying of dcd with the accusa- 
tive: "The instrument or agent; with persons, through 
whose agency or instrumentality something occurs or is 
done." Thayer's Greek Lexicon says: "With ace. of the 
person by whose will, agency, favor, fault, anything is or 
is not done." Instances of this usage may be found in the 
Septuagint and in the New Testament: "To be made by 
the hand of Moses" — Atd Moogtj (Exodus xxxv, 29. See, 
also, Josh, xx, 2; Ex. xxxviii, 21; Num. vii, 8); "This 
shall ye have of mine hand;" i. e., "By me these things 
came to you" — Ac' £/*£ iyivero radra 6f±Tv (Isaiah 1, 11); 
"And I live by the Father" — zdycb £co dtdrbv ITaripa (John 
vi, 57); "For the creature was made subject to vanity, 
not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected 
the same in hope" — literally " by him who hath subjected," 
etc. — Afa rov briord^avra (Rom. viii, 20). In the light of 
this usage, we may well abide by the common English Ver- 
sion. The text identifies the agent as the Spirit of the 
Father. It refers to the Spirit as dwelling in man, and 
as imparting life to mans dead body. Surely this can not 



202 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

be any attribute or influence. It bears the conclusive ev- 
idence of being a person. 

Unitarian Definitions of the Holy Spirit. 
A denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit leaves 
some texts of Scripture unintelligible and even absurd. 
To remedy this difficulty Unitarians have been compelled 
to give the words "the Holy Spirit" a great variety of 
definitions. Norton and Eliot define " the Holy Spirit" 
as "the power of God." Eliot unites with Yates, Pea- 
body, and others in a second definition, viz.: "God him- 
self." Eliot and Peabody unite in a third definition : "Va- 
rious influences which proceed from God and Christ." 
Channing calls it " a Divine assistance;" Worcester calls 
it "productive, efficient emanations of Divine fullness;" 
Thomas Starr King calls it " diffused grace ;" Burnap calls 
it " miraculous events;" J. F. Clarke calls it "an inward 
revelation of God and of Christ." (Norton's Gospels, Vol. 
II, p. 399 ; Channing, p. 235 ; Bible News, p. 183 ; Eliot's 
Doctrines of Christianity, p. 30; Yates's Reply to Ward- 
law, pp. 102, 107; Peabody's Lectures, pp. 131, 142; 
Burnap's Lectures, p. 236; Clarke's Orthodoxy, p. 435.) 
These interpretations fail in some of the plainest passages: 
Acts xv, 28: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and 
to us." 

The word doziu), here rendered " seemed good," means to 
think, to resolve, to appear. In verses 22, 25, 34 of this 
chapter it is rendered "please." It expresses the action 
and feeling of an intelligent, self-active agent. Any Uni- 
tarian interpretation of this text reduces it to an absurd- 
ity. Thus: "It seemed good to the power of God," "It 
seemed good to various influences," "It seemed good to 
efficient emanations of Divine influences," " It seemed good 
to diffused grace," " It seemed good to miraculous events," 
' ' It seemed good to an inward revelation of God and of 
Christ." Comment is unnecessary. The decision of the 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 203 

apostles was one that had originated with the Holy Spirit, 
had been communicated by the Holy Spirit to the minds 
of the apostles, and had been concurred in by them. It 
would seem impossible to teach the personality of the Holy 
Spirit in plainer terms. 

Revelation xxii, 17 : " The Spirit and the bride say, Come. 
And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is 
athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of 
life freely. " 

Here the Holy Spirit is inviting mankind to partake 
of " the water of life." Inviting is a purely personal act. 
To predicate it of any "influence" or of any "attribute" 
is the very essence of absurdity. 

John xv, 26 : " But when the Comforter is come, whom I 
will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, 
which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." 

In the discussion of this text, I will use it as a central 
point around which to collect all of the testimony given 
by John in chapters xiv, xv, and xvi to the personality 
and Deity of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Eliot, in his effort to 
evade the force of this testimony, has quoted, with appro- 
bation, the following paragraph from Wilson's "Illustra- 
tions," for the purpose of showing that the language ap- 
plied by Christ to the Holy Spirit is metaphorical, and 
designates an influence or attribute, and not a person : 
"The sea and the mountains are represented as having 
eyes ; the earth as having ears ; a song, a stone, an altar, 
water, and blood, the rust of gold and silver, are spoken 
of as witnesses. The sword and arm of Jehovah are ad- 
dressed as individuals capable of being roused from sleep. 
The ear, the eye, and the foot, the law, righteousness, and 
the blood of sprinkling are exhibited as speakers, and de- 
struction and death as saying that they had heard with 
their ears. In the language of Holy Writ, the sun re- 
joiceth and knoweth his going down ; the deep lifts up 
his hands and utters his voice ; the mountains skip like 



204 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

rams, the little hills like lambs; wisdom and understand- 
ing cry aloud, and put forth their voice ; the heart and 
the flesh of the prophet cry out for the living God. The 
Scripture is a seer and preacher ; the word of Jesus is a 
judge; nature, the heavens, the earth, are teachers. God's 
testimonies are counselors, his rod and staff are comforters, 
the light and the truth and the commandments of God 
are leaders or guides. Sin is described as a master, and 
death as a king and an enemy. Flesh and the mind are 
treated of as having a will ; fear and anger, mercy, light, 
and truth, the word and commandments of God are exhib- 
ited as messengers. Charity is represented as in posses- 
sion of all the graces and virtues of the Christian charac- 
ter. " (Eliot's Doctrines of Christianity, p. 36.) 

As this extract from Wilson contains the great burden 
of all that Unitarian writers have to say concerning fig- 
urative language as applied to the doctrine of the person- 
ality of the Holy Spirit, I will examine it sentence by 
sentence. 

The extract itself might very properly be called " a 
mass of perverted truths." Few things require more time 
and patience in their examination than a perverted truth ; 
for concealed under the mask of truth there is a vicious 
falsity. We must not forget the rule laid down by Angus, 
by which we decide whether a text is to be interpreted 
literally or figuratively. Inasmuch as Wilson does not 
seem to have followed any rule or plan in the presenta- 
tion of his references, the examination of them seriatim 
may involve considerable repetition. 

Wilson says: "The sea and the mountains are repre- 
sented as having eyes; the earth as having ears." As 
sight and hearing are not possessed by either seas, mount- 
ains, or earth, we are compelled to call such language 
metaphorical ; but the same language applied to the Holy 
Spirit would naturally be taken in a literal sense. God, 
who is Spirit, and angels, who are spirits, both see and 



THE HOL Y SPIRIT. 205 

hear; hence it is reasonable to believe that the Holy 
Spirit both sees and hears. By a figure of speech, seas 
and mountains may be said to see ; but it can never be 
said of either of them, as it is of the Holy Spirit, that it 
" searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." Fig- 
uratively, they may be said to hear; the Holy Spirit hears, 
and invites others to hear— " The Holy Ghost saith, To- 
day if ye will hear his voice." (1 Cor. ii, 10 ; Hebrews 
iii, 7.) The same explanation will hold good when, in the 
Bible, "the ear, the eye, and the foot, the law, righteous- 
ness, and the blood of sprinkling, are exhibited as speak- 
ers." Such language must be metaphorical, for none of 
these things constitute a rational being, capable of literal 
speech ; but it is pure presumption to classify the Holy 
Spirit with these non-volitional things. 

"A song, a stone, an altar, water, and blood, the rust 
of gold and silver, are spoken of as witnesses." Both 
things and persons are at times called " witnesses," but in 
different senses of the word. Things — such as songs, 
stones, altars, etc. — are witnesses when evidence can be 
drawn from them, but they can not render voluntary evi- 
dence. Their evidence must be collected and applied by 
the party desirous of using it. The evidence given by a 
living witness is collected and rendered by the witness 
himself. The Holy Spirit is a " witness." (Acts v, 32; 
Heb. x, 15.) His testimony is not involuntary, to be 
gathered up and applied by those who need it ; it is given 
by his own voluntary act, by which he brought to the 
" remembrance" of the disciples the things said by Christ. 
The Holy Spirit "speaks" what he had "heard." As a 
witness, he is not a thing, but a person. 

"The sword and arm of Jehovah are addressed as in- 
dividuals capable of being roused from sleep." The 
" sword" and "arm of Jehovah" denote the executive 
justice and power of Jehovah, and a call for them to 
"awake" is a prayer that they may be put in action. 



206 DOCTRINE OF TEE TRINITY. 

The Holy Spirit, like God the Father, "never slumbers 
nor sleeps." "Destruction and death, as saying that they 
had heard with their ears." There is no personification 
here, but the statement of a literal fact. "Destruction 
and death" are terms representing the inhabitants of sheol; 
and Job, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, sets them 
forth as saying that they have heard of "the fame" of 
"wisdom." (Job xxviii, 22.) "The sun rejoiceth and 
knoweth his going down ; the deep lifts up his hands, and 
utters his voice ; the mountains skip like rams, the little 
hills like lambs ; . . . the heart and the flesh of the 
prophet cry out for the living God." These expressions 
are metaphorical, and used in a highly-wrought poetical 
style ; and it is a violation of all rules of interpretation to 
use them in the exegesis of Christ's statements concerning 
the mission of the Holy Spirit, for Christ's words are in a 
style that is severely simple.. 

"The Scripture is a seer and preacher." In this sen- 
tence, Wilson has reference probably to Gal. iii, 8: "And 
the Scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify the 
heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto 
Abraham," etc. Here the word "Scriptures" evidently 
represents the author of the Scriptures, but that author is 
the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter i, 21.) "The word of Jesus 
is a judge." I know of no text teaching this. It may be 
that Wilson has reference to John xii, 48: "He that re- 
jecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that 
judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall 
judge him in the last day." This text does not represent 
"the word of Jesus" as the judge, but as the instrument- 
ality of the judgment. At present Christ is not the judge, 
but at the last day he will be the judge, and his word will 
be the instrumentality of the judgment. There is no per- 
sonification in this text. 

"Nature, the heavens, the earth, are teachers." That 
is, lessons of wisdom may be learned of them, but they 



THE HOL Y SPIRIT. 207 

have no voluntary power of teaching. Their lessons may 
be neglected, but they themselves can not be "quenched" 
or "grieved" as the Holy Spirit can. They are not per- 
sonal teachers ; lie is. The same, also, is true of the next 
item: "God's testimonies are counselors" — to teach only 
such as seek them and use them; but the Holy Spirit 
brings his counsel to bear upon every man. (John xvi, 8.) 
"His rod and staff are comforters." The "rod and staff" 
represent God's government and providence, and they are 
the comfort and support of God's people. On the same 
principle "the light and the truth and the commandments 
of God are the leaders or guides" to all them who will 
use them. They are passive guides, just as maps and 
charts are; but the Holy Spirit is an active Guide, both 
directing and urging men. (See Matt, iv, 1 ; Mark i, 12 ; 
Luke iv, 1; Eom. viii, 14.) "Sin is described as a mas- 
ter, and death as a king and an enemy." It is cheerfully 
granted that this language is figurative; but I am at a 
total loss to see how it disproves the personality of the 
Holy Spirit, or what bearing it has on the case. 

"Flesh and the mind are treated of as having a will." 

1 presume that Wilson probably refers to John i, 13, and 

2 Cor. viii, 12: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of 
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God ;" 
"For if there be first a willing mind." The first text 
uses the term "flesh," not in any figurative sense, but as 
a common Biblical name for depraved human nature. 
Our Savior, in describing the new birth, makes four prop- 
ositions — three negative, and one affirmative. Thus, the 
sons of God are " born, not of blood" — kindred — af/jtaraiv; 
"nor of the will of the flesh" — not of the will of a de- 
praved, carnal being; "nor of the will of man" — not by 
the agency of any other man ; " but of God," through the 
"renewing of the Holy Spirit." (Titus iii, 5.) In the 
second text (2 Cor. viii, 12), "mind" is not a personifica- 
tion, but denotes the intellect of man. "A willing mind" 



208 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

is the intellect having the hearty co-operation of the will. 
flpo&uiiia occurs only in Acts xvii, 11 ; 2 Cor. viii, 
11, 12, 19; ix, 2. Its usage in these places will fully 
sustain the foregoing. In neither of these texts is there 
any personification. 

"Fear and anger, mercy, light, and truth, the word 
and commandment of God, are exhibited as messengers." 
Not so; they are represented as going before Jehovah, and 
as being sent by him ; they are not messengers, but mes- 
sages ; the Holy Spirit is not a message, but a Messenger. 
The reference to " charity " is a reference to the discus- 
sion of that subject as discussed in 1 Cor. xiii, 1-13. An 
examination of this chapter will show that "charity" is 
neither an abstraction nor a personification, but an attri- 
bute as possessed and exercised by men ; and the remarks 
of the apostle apply, not to any personification, but to men 
who exercise charity. The Holy Spirit is the personal 
author of this charity. (Rom. v, 5 ; Gal. v, 22.) The 
most thorough examination of the personifications and 
metaphorical expressions of the Holy Scriptures will not 
furnish any evidence against the Personality and Deity of 
the Holy Spirit. 

The examination of John xv, 26, will now be resumed. 
As already stated, this text will be used as a rallying- 
point, around which to collect all of the testimony given 
by John (in chapters xiv, xv, and xvi) to the doctrine of 
the Personality of the Holy Spirit. Yates, in his reply to 
Wardlaw (page 118), objects that the Holy Spirit can 
not be a person, for the Father is said to "give" it: 
"He shall give you another Comforter." Yates says: 
"This phrase excludes personality." Yates forgets that 
Christ is spoken of as "the Son given." (Isaiah ix, 6; 
John iii, 16; Romans viii, 32.) In chapter xiv, 16, the 
Holy Spirit is called a "Comforter," Uapdy.Xrjro<;. The 
Greek term is defined by McClintock and Strong thus: 
"One who pleads the cause of another; also one who 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 209 

exhorts, defends, comforts, prays, for another. It is an 
appellation given to the Holy Spirit by Christ (John xiv, 
16, 26; xv, 26; xvi, 7), and to Christ himself by an 
apostle (1 John ii, 1. See also Eom. viii, 34 ; Heb. vii, 25)." 

" In the widest sense, a helper, succorer, aider, assist- 
ant; so of the Holy Spirit, destined to take the place of 
Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), 
to lead them to a deeper knowledge of gospel truth, and 
to give them the divine strength needed to enable them to 
undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the Divine 
kingdom. (John xiv, 16, 26 ; xv, 26 ; xvi, 7.) " (Thayer's 
Greek Lexicon, sub voce.) 

Of the Holy Spirit, as the Paraclete, it is said that 
"he abides," "dwells," that he will "teach," "testify," 
" guide," " speak," " hear," " show," " reprove/' and " glo- 
rify." (Ch. xiv, 16, 17, 26; xv, 26; xvi, 7, 8, 13, 14.) 
Here are nine different actions, all of them personal ac- 
tions. In bold figures of speech, each one of them sepa- 
rately might be applied to some personification ; but Uni- 
tarianism may be respectfully challenged to produce a 
single instance in which they are all applied to one im- 
personal subject. The personal title " Paraclete," applied 
to the Holy Spirit, and these nine personal actions, are all 
predicated of the Holy Spirit ; are unanswerable proof of 
his Personality. 

1 Corinthians xii, 11: "But all these worketh that one 
and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as 
he will." 

There can be no question that the pronoun "these," 
Taura, refers to the gifts and graces mentioned in the pre- 
ceding verses, and all of these are said to be " worked," 
or produced, by the Holy Spirit. He is the author pro- 
ducing "wisdom," "knowledge," "faith," "gifts of heal- 
ing," "working of miracles," "prophecy," "discerning of 
spirits," "tongues," and "interpretations of tongues." 
Here are nine distinct gifts, each one of them involving 

18 



210 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

mental and moral power; and each one of these gifts is 
produced by the energy of the Holy Spirit. That some one 
of these gifts might, in a bold figure of speech, be predi- 
cated of an impersonal subject, is not impossible ; but that 
all nine of them should, in a plain narrative, be predicated 
of a mere abstraction, is wholly incredible. 

In this text the Holy Spirit is not to be confounded 
with the "influences," "gifts," and "graces;" for he is 
distinguished from them as being their author, — " all these 
worketh that one and the self-same Spirit." 

In verses 6, 7, the Holy Spirit is also distinguished from 
both Christ and the Father; thus we have "the Lord," 
"God," and "the Spirit;" in verse 3 we have "God," 
"Jesus," and " the Holy Spirit." 

The Holy Spirit is said to divide these gifts "as he 
will." The objection that Jesus represents "the wind" 
as having a will falls powerless; for it is not clear that 
there is any personification in the words, " the wind blow- 
eth where it listeth." Jesus spoke of the wind as it ap- 
pears to men, that is unrestrained and free in its action. 
This argument is, that just as the wind is independent of 
human control, so the Holy Spirit, in its operation, is ruled 
by its own free will. 

Dr. TVhedons note on John iii, 8, is so clear and sat- 
isfactory that I w 7 ill give the following quotation from it : 
" By a beautiful touch, the volitional power — that is, the 
will — belonging to Spirit, is here attributed to the wind. 
The Divine Spirit acts by its own supreme and supremely 
w 7 ise will. Yet, as modern science has discovered in some 
degree the laws of winds and storms, it is demonstrated 
that the wind, however capricious it may seem, is as truly 
under law as the solar system. And so the Spirit is not 
capricious, a powerful and arbitrary sovereign, but acts 
freely in accordance, not with fixed laws, but with wise and 
wisely adapted principles and reasons." 

The apostle expresses the "will" of the Spirit by 



THE HOL Y SPIRIT. 211 

Pou\o[iat. This "word does not so much imply arbitrary 
pleasure as a determination founded on a wise counsel. " 
(Wesley's Notes.) Thayer, in his Greek Lexicon, enter- 
tains a similar view; he says PouXojiai "marks the choice 
as deliberate and intelligent." 

It is evident that what an agent or factor does not 
possess, that it can not communicate nor give ; and what- 
ever an agent or factor has given, that he must have 
possessed. But in this chapter the Holy Spirit is said to 
have given knowledge, wisdom, language, etc., and to 
have done this " as he will;" that is, of his own free, de- 
liberate purpose. It follows that the Holy Spirit must 
possess knowledge, wisdom, language, and will, proviDg 
beyond all doubt that the Holy Spirit is not an abstrac- 
tion, but a person. 

Ephesians ii, 18 : " For through, him we both have access 
by one Spirit unto the Father.-" 

Ellicott comments on this text as follows: " * In one 
Spirit, common to Jew and Gentile;' not for did (Chrys.; 
compare CEcum., Calv., al.), but, as usual, ' united in' 
(Olsh.) ; compare 1 Cor. xii, 13. The Holy Spirit is, as 
it were, the vital sphere or element in which both parties 
have their common TzpocTaycoyyj to the Father. The men- 
tion of the three persons in the blessed Trinity, with the 
three prepositions, 3td t iv, 7tp6g, is especially noticeable and 
distinct." 

Adam Clarke writes: " Jews and Gentiles are to be pre- 
sented unto God the Father ; the Spirit of God works in 
their hearts and prepares them for this presentation ; and 
Jesus Christ himself introduces them." 

I believe that the two foregoing comments state the 
meaning of this text. They are indorsed by the great 
majority of Christian commentators. 

1 Peter i, 2 : " Elect according to the foreknowledge of God 
the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, 
and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 



212 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

In this text the sanctify ing Spirit is as certainly dis- 
tinguished from the Father and the Son, as the Son is 
from the Father and the Spirit. 

Acts v, 32 : "And we are his witnesses of these things, and 
so is also the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that 
obey him." 

Yates, in his "Vindication" (pp. 116, 117), quotes 
John v, 36; x, 25, 37, 38, and then adds: " In these pas- 
sages, as well as in the address of Peter, miracles are per- 
sonified, and appealed to as the witnesses of certain facts. 
The only difference is that in these passages they are 
called 'works;' by Peter they are denominated the 'Holy 
Spirit.' " To this method of explaining the text there are 
some objections. It does not follow that because "the 
works" of Christ and "the Holy Spirit" both bear wit- 
ness to Christ, that therefore "the works" and " the Holy 
Spirit" are one and the same. Both "the works" and 
"the Father" and "the apostles" bear witness to Christ; 
surely they are not identical ; yet there is just as much 
reason for making them identical as there is for making 
"the works" and "the Holy Spirit" identical. 

Again, " the works" " bear witness," not as intelligent 
beings, but as actions whose testimony must be collected 
and applied by those who wish to use it ; on the other 
hand, the Holy Spirit voluntarily " testifies" of " what it 
hears." Again, "the works," when testifying, are always 
spoken of in the plural ; while " the Holy Spirit" (with the 
exception of the title, " The seven spirits," occurring in the 
first five chapters of Revelation), is never mentioned in the 
plural, but always in the singular. It evidently is the de- 
sign of Peter to represent the Holy Spirit and the apostles 
as personal co-workers for Christ. 

Bosnians viii, 16 : " The Spirit itself beareth witness with our 
spirit, that we are the children of God." 

Yates paraphrases this text as follows: "Our persua- 
sion of the peculiar favor of God toward us is assured by 



THE HOL Y SPIRIT. 213 

the testimony of his gracious aid, direction, and consola- 
tion." (Vindication, p. 117.) Let us test Yates's defini- 
tion of "the Holy Spirit," in this place, by other texts 
that speak of the same Spirit, in this same chapter. Thus, 
verse 2, " the law of the Spirit of life," would read, " the 
law of his gracious aid, direction, and consolation of life;" 
verse 5, "But they that are after the gracious aid, direc- 
tion, and consolation, mind the things of the gracious aid, 
direction, and consolation;" verse 9, "But ye are not in 
the flesh, but in the gracious aid, direction, and consolation, 
if so be that the gracious aid, direction, and consolation 
of God dwell in you;" verse 26, "Likewise the gracious 
aid, direction, and consolation also helpeth our infirmi- 
ties, . . . but the gracious aid, direction, and consolation 
itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which can 
not be uttered;" verse 27, "He that searcheth the hearts 
knoweth what is the mind of the gracious aid, direction, 
and consolation." Again, waiving the question of moral 
purity (for the human spirit is naturally impure, while the 
Holy Spirit is perfectly pure), it will be evident to every 
unprejudiced mind that the spirit of man and the Spirit 
of God must be alike in kind, though not in degree; hence, 
if the Holy Spirit is " the aid, direction, and consolation" 
of God, then the spirit of man must be "the aid, direc- 
tion and consolation" of man. Our text would then read, 
"'The gracious aid, direction, and consolation ' of God 
witnesses with our 'aid, direction, and consolation/ that 
we are the children of God." Such are the beauties of 
Unitarian exposition. 

I add the following, from Hodge's comment on the 
text: "77ie Spirit itself is, of course, the Holy Spirit, — 1. 
Because of the obvious distinction between it and our 
spirit. 2. Because of the use of the word throughout the 
passage. 3. Because of the analogy to other texts, winch 
can not otherwise be explained : ' God hath sent forth the 
Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father' 



214 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

(Gal. iv, 6); 'The love of God is shed abroad in our 
hearts by the Holy Spirit given unto us' (Rom. v, 
5), etc." 

OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 

Objection 1. Dr. Worcester (Bible News, p. 188) ob- 
jects that the same actions that are ascribed to the Holy 
Spirit are also "the breath," "the hand," and "the 
finger;" hence he concludes that "the breath," "the 
hand," and " the finger" of the Lord must be synonymous 
with " the Spirit of the Lord." The utter fallacy of this 
will be apparent on an examination of his first statement. 
I will quote it: "The breath of the Lord is used as sy- 
nonymous with the Spirit of the Lord. The wicked are 
represented as consumed both by the ' breath of the Lord' 
and by the c Spirit of the Lord.'" His argument is, that 
as the wicked are consumed both by the " breath" and by 
the "Spirit," therefore the "breath" and the "Spirit" 
are synonymous. But the wicked are consumed not only 
by the " breath" and by the " Spirit," but by the "Lord," 
by "anger," "wrath," "terrors," "the sw r ord," "famine," 
"fire," and "hailstones." According to the argument of 
Dr. Worcester, all of these must be synonymous. The 
other illustrations are readily reduced to a similar absurd- 
ity. Dr. Worcester has appended to his objection the fol- 
lowing note; " The Spirit of the Lord and the breath of 
the Lord are the same in the original. Is the breath of 
the Lord a person? If not, neither is the Spirit of the 
Lord or the Holy Spirit." Because " breath " and "Spirit" 
are both translations of IJvsop.a, it does not follow that both 
"breath" and "Spirit" mean the same thing, or that 
Uveufia has the same meaning in all places. D n , " ruah," 
is translated by "spirit," "wind," "breath," and "cour- 
age." According to Dr. Worcester, all of these words are 
synonymous. tf&J, nephesh, is rendered "soul," "life," 
"creature," "lust," "person," "yourselves," "the dead," 



OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 215 

"dead body," " pleasure," and " appetite;" surely these are 
not synonymous. 

Objection 2. It is objected by Unitarians that the Holy 
Spirit is said to be "poured out," "shed forth," "shed 
abroad," and that it is said to "fall," to "come down," 
etc. ; hence it can not be a person. To this Bickersteth, 
in his "Eock of Ages," pp. 150, 151, gives a sufficient 
answer: "Here we fully admit that the terms 'Spirit 9 
and 'Holy Spirit' do sometimes denote, not the persou, but 
the operations, the gifts, the influences of the Holy Ghost ; 
as, for example, when it is said, 'I will take of the Spirit 
that is upon thee.' But the question is, not whether some 
passages may not be brought forward which denote the op- 
erations and influences of the Spirit, and therefore do not 
establish the point ; but whether, besides these, there are not 
very numerous portions of Scripture which do positively and 
unanswerably establish his personality. Just as if I were 
studying a work on horticulture, and because the writer, 
here and there, used the term 'sun' to denote the influ- 
ences of the sun, directing me to place certain plants in 
the sun, or that more or less sun should be admitted, I 
were to contend that the author could not believe there was 
actually such a globe of light in the heavens, although in 
many other parts he had spoken in most strict astronom- 
ical language of our planetary system. You would justly 
assure me that the occasional recurrence of such familiar 
phrases as 'more or less sun/ etc., was no valid argument 
against his conviction of the sun's real existence, stated 
elsewhere in the volume plainly and positively. Now, we 
admit that by ' the Spirit ' are sometimes intended the 
gifts and graces of the Spirit. These graces may be poured 
out, these gifts distributed. But 'all these worketh that 
one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man sever- 
ally as he will.' " 

Objection 3. It is objected to the personality of the 
Holy Spirit that nveupa is not masculine but neuter, and 



216 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 

that this would not be the case if the Holy Spirit was a 
person. That the use of nouns and pronouns of the neuter 
gender does not disprove personality, is evident from the 
fact that to fipicpoq, to natdiov, and to t£xvov } all of them 
neuter nouns, are nevertheless common names for a child. 
The first two, fipiyoq and natdtov are repeatedly applied to 
Christ. (Matt, ii, 9, 11, 13, 14, 21; Luke ii, 12, 16.) 
It is in harmony with this that the angel calls the child 
Jesus "that holy thing," ayiov. (Luke i, 35.) In 1 John 
v, 4, those " born of God" are called in the neuter nav to 
yeyewrj/iivov ; but those born of God are not things, but 
persons. There can be no question about the personality 
of the daughter of Jairus, yet in Mark v, 23, she is called 
to ftuydTptov. The Germans say, " das Weib" Surely this 
does not question the wife's personality; yet both these 
substantives are neuter. 

Deity does not exist under the limitations of sex or 
gender. The fact that 6e6q is masculine does not prove 
that God has gender or sex. " Gender is only properly 
attributed to animal bodies; but God is of no gender, and 
therefore the sacred writers were left at liberty to speak 
grammatically, and to put their articles and pronouns in 
the same gender with the nouns with which they should 
agree. To delov, the word used in Acts xvii, 29, and 
translated the Godhead, is neuter, and has a neuter arti- 
cle." (Hare on Socinianism, p. 103.) Demons, angels, 
and Deity are without sex. The application to them of 
male nouns and pronouns does not prove them to be of 
the male gender, and the application of a neuter noun or 
pronoun to the Holy Spirit does not disprove its person- 
ality, but designates a personality that is independent of 
gender. 

For the benefit of those who may wish to examine this 
subject somewhat further, I add the following facts : 1. 
The noun izveu[ia and its article to are neuter. 2. The 
noun napdxXrjTos and its article 6 are masculine. 3. I 



OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 217 

have found twenty-five places in the New Testament in 
which the Holy Spirit is referred to by a pronoun. 4. In 
twelve of these places the pronoun is neuter : To, John 
xiv, 7; xv, 26, twice. Auto, John xiv, 17, three times; 
Eomans viii, 16, 26; 1 Cor. xii, 11, 48. *0v, John xv, 26. 
To, 1 John v, 6. 5. In eight of these cases the pronoun 
is masculine : 'Exewog, John xiv, 26 ; xv, 26 ; xvi, 8, 13, 
14. y Aurdv, John xvi, 7. a 0q, Eph. i, 14. 6. In six of 
these cases the pronoun is indefinite ; that is, it may be 
either masculine or neuter: Oo, John vii, 39; 1 John iii, 
24. 'EauTou, John xvi, 13. Aurw, 1 Cor. xii, 9; <J, Eph. 
iv, 30 ; 1 Peter iii, 19. I have tried to collect every case 
in the New Testament in which the Holy Spirit is referred 
to by a pronoun. I will not say positively that the fore- 
going are all of the cases, but I think that they will be 
found to be nearly if not quite all. 

Objection Jf. " Much is said in the Scriptures of the 
mutual love between the Father and the Son, and the 
disposition of each to honor the other ; but where shall we 
find the least intimation of any love on the part of the 
Father or the Son towards the Holy Spirit as a person, or 
on the part of the Holy Spirit towards either the Father 
or the Son ? Yet if the Spirit be a person, as distinct 
from the Father and the Son as the Son is from the 
Father, should we not have reason to expect the same 
evidence of mutual love in the one case as in the other?" 
(Worcester's Bible News, p. 202.) I answer, not neces- 
sarily. Inasmuch as the Father had given the Son up, 
to pass through an experience of humiliation, temp- 
tation, suffering, shame, and death, it became neces- 
sary that their mutual love might be abundantly made 
known, in order that the ministry of the Son might be 
understood, and be successful ; but as the Holy Spirit did 
not send the Son, neither was the Holy Spirit called to 
pass through any humiliation or suffering; hence it was not 
so necessary that his relation to this mutual love should be 

19 



218 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

revealed. The Holy Spirit, as a person of infinite wis- 
dom and holiness (indicated by the title he wears, " the 
Holy Spirit "), must necessarily receive the infinite love of 
both the Father and the Son. For the same reason we 
are commanded to love the Father and to love the Son, 
while there is no specific command to love the Holy Spirit. 
Nor is any such command necessary ; for it is the work 
of the Holy Spirit to create love in the heart (Eom. v, 5 ; 
Gal. iv, 6; v, 22; Eph. iii, 16-19), and he would neces- 
sarily be the object of the love which he had created. In 
the light of the doctrine of the Trinity, there is no ne- 
cessity for a command to love the Holy Spirit, for he is 
one of the persons in the triune Godhead. Every com- 
mand to love God is a command to love the Holy Spirit ; 
and we can not intelligently love God without loving the 
Holy Spirit. 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE. 

The following summary of the evidence of the per- 
sonality of the Holy Spirit is quoted from Watson's Dic- 
tionary, sub voce: " 1. The mode of his subsistence in the 
sacred Trinity proves his personality. He proceeds from 
the Father and the Son, and can not, therefore, be either. 
To say that an attribute proceeds and comes forth, would 
be a gross absurdity. 2. Many passages of Scripture are 
wholly unintelligible, and even absurd, unless the Holy 
Ghost is allowed to be a person. For as those who take 
the phrase as ascribing no more than a figurative person- 
ality to an attribute, make that attribute to be the energy 
or power of God, they reduce such passages as the follow- 
ing to utter unmeaningness : ' God anointed Jesus with 
the Holy Ghost and with power ;' that is, with the power 
of God and with power. * That ye may abound in hope 
through the power of the Holy Ghost ;' that is, through 
the power of power. * In demonstration of the Spirit and 
of power ;' that is, in demonstration of power and of power. 



SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE, 219 

3. Personification of any kind is, in some passages in which 
the Holy Ghost is spoken of, impossible. The reality 
which this figure of speech is said to represent to us, is 
either some of the attributes of God, or else the doctrine 
of the gospel. Let this theory, then, be tried upon the 
following passages: 'He shall not speak of himself; but 
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak? What at- 
tribute of God can here be personified? And if the doc- 
trine of the gospel be arrayed with personal attributes, 
where is an instance of so monstrous a prosopopoeia as this 
passage would exhibit, the doctrine of the Gospel not 
speaking ' of himself/ but speaking ' whatsoever he shall 
hear?' ' The Spirit maketh intercession for us/ What 
attribute is capable of interceding, or how can the doctrine 
of the gospel intercede? Personification, too, is the lan- 
guage of poetry, and takes place naturally only in excited 
and elevated discourse ; but if the Holy Spirit be a per- 
sonification, we find it in the ordinary and cool strain of 
mere narration and argumentative discourse in the New 
Testament and in the most incidental conversations. 
' Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? We 
have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy 
Ghost/ How impossible is it here to extort, by any pro- 
cess whatever, even the shadow of a personification of either 
any attribute of God or of the doctrine of the gospel. So 
again: 'The Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join 
thyself to this chariot/ Could it be any attribute of God 
which said this, or could it be the doctrine of the gospel ? 
Finally, that the Holy Ghost is a person, and not an at- 
tribute, is proved by the use of masculine pronouns and 
relatives in the Greek of the New Testament, in connec- 
tion with the neuter noun Ilved^a (Spirit), and also by 
many distinct personal acts being ascribed to him ; as, ' to 
come/ 'to go/ 'to be sent/ 'to teach/ 'to guide/ 'to 
make intercession/ ' to bear witness/ ' to give gifts/ ' di- 
viding them to every man as he will/ ' to be vexed/ 



220 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

1 grieved/ and ' quenched/ These can not be applied to 
the mere fiction of a person, and they therefore establish 
the Spirit's true personality." 

Direct Evidence of the Deity of the Holy Spirit. 

1. The Holy Spirit is called " God." 

Acts v, 3, 4 : " Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie 
to the Holy Spirit? . . . Thou hast not lied unto men, 
but unto God." 

The apostles were under the influence and direction of 
the Holy Spirit. (John xiv, 17, 26 ; xvi, 13 ; xx, 22 ; 
Acts i, 5, 8; ii, 4; iv, 8, 31.) It was by the Holy Spirit 
that the apostles governed the Church. The attempt of 
Ananias to deceive the apostles was really an attempt to 
deceive the Holy Spirit which dwelt in them ; and it was 
by the power of the Holy Spirit that Peter detected the 
falsehood, thus proving the omniscience, and consequently 
the Deity, of the Holy Spirit. Peter charges Ananias 
with lying to the Holy Spirit, and afterward calls it lying 
to God, thus proving that the Holy Spirit is God. 

The authors of the "Improved Version" append a 
note, from which we quote the following: "Satan, a spirit 
and temper opposite to that of the gospel. To deceive 
the Holy Spirit, i. e., men who were inspired by God. 
Observe here, both Satan and the Holy Spirit are per- 
sonifications of qualities." The authors of this version 
seem to be in some confusion over the meaning of the 
words " the Holy Spirit;" they first define them as mean- 
ing "men who were inspired by God," and in the next 
break they call both Satan and the Holy Spirit the "per- 
sonifications of qualities." Are "men who were inspired 
by God" and "personifications of qualities" two names 
for the same thing? Are we to believe that one " quality" 
put it into the heart of Ananias to lie to another 
"quality," and that Ananias and his wife agreed to- 



DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 221 

gether to tempt a quality? (See verse 9.) Ananias is 
said " to lie to the Holy Spirit. " He could not lie to a 
quality, nor to an attribute, nor to an influence ; he could 
lie only to a person; hence the Holy Spirit is a person, 
and by an inspired apostle he is called "God." 

According to Peter, to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie 
to God ; to lie to the Holy Spirit is not to lie to man, be- 
cause the Holy Spirit is not man ; and it is not to lie to 
an angel, because the Holy Spirit is not an angel; nor 
to lie to any creature, because the Holy Spirit is not a 
creature; but to lie to God, because the Holy Spirit is 
God. If the Holy Spirit were not God, the apostle might 
have said, "Thou hast not lied unto the Holy Spirit, but 
unto God," for this would have been a proper manner of 
distinguishing them. Or, the apostle might have said, 
" Thou hast not lied unto God, but unto the Holy Spirit;" 
or, the apostle might have said, "Thou hast lied unto the 
Holy Spirit, and thou hast lied unto God." But the 
apostle did not use either of these modes of stating the 
matter. He asked of Ananias, "Why hath Satan filled 
thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ? , , . Thou hast 
not lied unto men, but unto God ;" thus rendering it un- 
questionably certain that the apostle believed the Holy 
Spirit to be God. 

1 Corinthians hi, 16 : " Know ye not that ye are the tem- 
ple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" 

1 Corinthians vi, 19 : " Your body is the temple of the 
Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God." 

2 Corinthians vi, 16: " Ye are the temple of the living 
God." 

In the first of these texts the apostle calls believers in 
Christ "the temple of God;" in the last text he calls be- 
lievers "the temple of the living God;" in the second 
text he calls believers " the temple of the Holy Ghost," 
proving decisively that the Holy Spirit is God. Yates 
objects that " the Holy Spirit is not a person, because he 



222 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 

is said to be * given unto us.'" Yates forgets that Christ 
was given to us, yet he was a person. Yates also objects 
that " faith," "the word of Christ," and "sin" are said 
to dwell in us ; but that does not prove them to be per- 
sons — they are only things. True, but the persons in 
whom they dwell are never called " the temple of faith," 
or " the temple of the word of Christ," or " the temple of 
sin ;" but the person in whom the Holy Spirit dwells is 
called "the temple of the Holy Ghost." The indwelling 
of Deity is absolutely essential to the very existence of a 
temple. Without the indwelling of Deity there can be no 
temple. Believers are "the temple of the Holy Spirit;" 
and they are called "the temple of God," because the 
Holy Spirit is God. 

Yates quotes 2 Timothy i, 14 — " That good thing which 
was committed unto thee, keep by the Holy Spirit which 
dwelleth in us" — and adds: "In this passage ' the Holy 
Spirit ' must signify powers and dispositions, because Tim- 
othy is exhorted to use them as instruments, by means of 
which he may keep secure his Christian privileges and ad- 
vantages." The text says nothing about "instruments;" 
there is not a plural noun or verb in the whole verse. 
Timothy is exhorted to keep the "good thing" "by the 
Holy Spirit" — dta Uviotiaros ayioo; the same construction 
(Std, with the genitive) occurs in John vi, 57 : "I live by 
the Father." Is the Father only an instrument by which 
Christ lives? Again, Romans ii, 16: "Shall judge the 
secrets of men by Jesus Christ." Is Christ to be only an 
instrument in the judgment? Is he not to be the Judge? 
Again, Galatians i, 1: "Paul, an apostle, not of men, 
neither by man, but by Jesus Christ." Was Christ only 
an instrument in making Paul an apostle? Was he not 
the Creator and the Master of the apostle? The Holy 
Spirit was not an instrument in the hands of Timothy to 
be used by him; he was the indwelling God, by whose 
gracious aid Timothy would be able to hold fast the faith. 



DEITY OF TEE HOLY SPIRIT, 223 

In John iii, 5, 6, the sons of God are spoken of as be- 
ing " born of the Spirit," while in John i, 13, they are 
said to be born "of God;" thus applying the title "God" 
and the title "Spirit" to one and the same agent or 
person. 

Matthew xii, 31, 32 : " All manner of sin and blasphemy 
shall be forgiven unto men ; but the blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever 
speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven 
him ; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall 
not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world 
to come." 

Burnap objects that "blasphemy does not prove the 
person or thing against which it is uttered to be God," 
and refers to the fact that "the king," "Moses," "the 
law," and "the temple" are all said to have been the sub- 
jects of blasphemy, and yet no one of these persons or 
things was God. It is cheerfully admitted that blasphemy, 
in an inferior sense, has been uttered against created per- 
sons and things; but it is impossible for it to be uttered, 
in its highest sense, against any other being than God. 
That blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is of the highest 
and worst grade, is evident from the fact that it is unpar- 
donable. And as the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit 
is unpardonable, it proves the Holy Spirit to be God. 

"Can blasphemy against any thing or person, that is 
not God, be a greater sin than blasphemy against God? 
If sin against the Holy Ghost be the greatest possible sin, 
the only unpardonable sin, then surely the Holy Ghost 
must be God." (Raymond's Theology.) 

2. The Holy Spirit is omnipresent. 

1 Corinthians vr, 19: " What! know ye not that your body 
is the temple of the'Holy Ghost which is in you ?" 

This text is adduced here to prove the omnipresence 
of the Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as he dwells in each be- 



224 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

liever in Christ, he must be omnipresent; hence, must 
be God. 

Romans viii, 14 : " As many as are led by the Spirit of God, 
they are the sons of God." 

The Spirit of God is the Personal Leader of all of 
"the sons of God" — hence must be everywhere present; 
none but God is everywhere present — hence the Holy 
Spirit is the Omnipresent God. 

1 Corinthians ii, 10, 11: "But God hath revealed them 
unto us by his Spirit ; for the Spirit search eth all things, yea, 
the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of 
a man, save the spirit of man which is in him ? Even so the 
things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." 

From this text the following points are plainly deduci- 
ble: 1. The Spirit possesses knowledge. 2. This knowl- 
edge is not communicated to him by another; but is his 
own, by virtue of his own intellectual activity — "the 
Spirit searcheth." 3. This knowledge extends to the se- 
cret purposes of Deity — " all things, yea, the deep things 
of God." "He penetrates and understands all the Di- 
vine counsels." (Schleusner's Lexicon.) 4. He is the 
Father's Agent in revealing these counsels to men — "God 
hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit." The Being 
who can thus penetrate, understand, and reveal to men 
the secret counsels of God, must be supremely Divine. 

Dr. Worcester objects: "It is obvious that the Spirit 
of God is here represented as bearing the same relation to 
God as the spirit of man does to the man. But as man 
and his spirit are but one person, so God and his Spirit 
are represented as one Person." (Bible News, p. 194.) 
Substantially the same objection is urged by Yates, Farley, 
Burnap, and others. But the apostle urges that just as 
certainly as only the human spirit among creatures can 
know the things of a man, just so certainly only the Spirit 
of God can know the things of God ; but the apostle does 
not represent the Holy Spirit as holding the same relation 



DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 225 

to God that the human spirit does to man. Nothing is 
said about the relationship of either the human spirit or 
the Holy Spirit ; this is a subject that the apostle does not 
discuss. The Holy Spirit is distinct from God the Father, 
for it "searcheth the deep things of God." The word 
ipsuvda), here rendered "search," means to " penetrate and 
understand," and is an appropriate word to designate the 
search of one intelligent being by another. Again, it is by 
the Holy Spirit, as an agent, that God reveals himself to 
man ; the Spirit being distinct from the Father whom he 
reveals. As "the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep 
things of God"— as he " knoweth" the " things of God"— it 
follows that, like the Father and the Son (Matthew xi, 27; 
John x, 15), the Holy Spirit is omniscient, hence su- 
premely Divine. 

Some Unitarian writers define the term "Spirit," in 
verse 10, as meaning "inspiration." The text would then 
read: "God hath revealed them unto us by his inspira- 
tion ; for the inspiration searcheth all things. . . . 
Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the in- 
spiration of God." Unitarian exegesis does not leave much 
meaning in the words of Scripture. 

Scott's note on this text sets it in a clear light: "The 
apostle and the other preachers of salvation by Jesus 
Christ had not discovered the mysteries of Divine wis- 
dom by their own superior sagacity ; but God hath re- 
vealed it to them by his Spirit, who not only searched all 
hearts, but was intimately acquainted with the deep things 
of God, and all the inmost counsels of his infinite mind. 
For as no man can penetrate the recesses of another's 
heart, and know the whole of his thoughts and intentions 
in the same way that his own soul is conscious of them, 
so none can know, discover, or comprehend the things of 
God but his own infinite Spirit, who is one with the Father 
and the Son in the unity of the Godhead, and whose office 
it is to reveal divine mysteries to his Church. (Matt. 



226 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

xi, 27.) This should be noted as a most decisive testimony 
both to the Deity and personality of the Holy Spirit." 

Hebrews ix, 8: "The Holy Ghost this signifying." 

This expression shows the Holy Spirit to be the author 
of the whole Mosaic ritual. The Holy Spirit formed the 
tabernacle, and appointed its services according to his 
eternal plan, and who speaks through each and all of its 
services. As. the Holy Spirit is the author of the Mosaic 
ritual he must be a person, for none but a person can be 
an author. Again, as the Holy Spirit is the author of 
this system of worship he must be God. 

Some Unitarians object to the doctrine of the Deity of 
the Holy Spirit, that "the name of the Holy Spirit is 
omitted in the salutations of the epistles, and also in the 
apostolic benedictions." I will give Hurrion's answer as 
it is quoted by David Simpson : 

" As Christ came not to glorify himself, but the Father, 
so the Spirit came not to glorify himself but Christ, as our 
Savior teaches us in these words : * He shall not speak of 
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak. 
He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall 
shew it unto you.' (John xvi, 13, 14.) When Christ 
came in the flesh he veiled his own glory and proclaimed 
the Father's ; so the Holy Spirit, as it were, conceals his 
own glory to promote the glory of Christ, in whose name 
he both speaks and acts. But yet, as Christ sometimes 
did, he turns aside the veil, and manifests his own glory, 
though not so frequently, so clearly, and so fully as that 
of the Son. The design of his mission was to glorify the 
Son, not himself; and Christ was no less God, and no 
less worthy of glory when he humbled himself, than when 
he was exalted, so the Holy Ghost is no less worthy of 
glory when he comes to reveal the glory of Christ, than if 
he had come more fully to display his own." (Simpson's 
Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 339.) 



APPENDIX. 



PLURAIvIS MAJESTATICUS. 

AS Unitarian writers have a great deal to say about the 
pluralis majestaticus (the plural of majesty), when 
they are endeavoring to explain the use of plural pro- 
nouns by Deity, I propose to examine every case that is 
cited by these writers, so far as they have come to my 
notice. 

And the first to be examined is — 

Genesis i, 26: "And God said, Let us make man in our 
image, after our likeness." 

In addition to what I have already said on this text, 
I add the following : 

' ' Some interpreters, both Jewish and Christian, have 
understood a plural of dignity, after the manner of kings. 
This is the opinion of Gesenius and most of the Germans. 
But the royal style of speech was probably a custom of 
much later date than the time of Moses. Thus we read, 
Gen. xli, 41-44, ' I have set thee over the land of Egypt; 
I am Pharaoh.' Indeed, this royal style is unknown in 
Scripture. . . . The ancient Christians, with one mind, see 
in these words of God that plurality in the Divine unity 
which was more fully revealed when God sent his only 
Son into the world, and when the only begotten Son, who 
was in the bosom of the Father, declared him to mankind. 
So, e. g., Barnabas (ch. iv), Justin M., Irenseus, Theophil., 
Epiphan. (Hseres. xxxiii, 4-2), Theodoret." (The Bible 
Com.) 

1 Kings xii, 9; 2 Chronicles x, 9: "And he said unto 
them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people ?" 

227 



228 DOCTRINE OF TEE TRINITY. 

In these texts it is not by any means certain that Re- 
hoboam assumes the majestic style in the use of his pro- 
nouns. If he had been using the pluralis majestaticus, he 
would have been just as likely to have used it when he 
spoke to the old men (see verse 6). When he speaks to 
the old men, it is evident that he is not in sympathy with 
them, and he uses the singular pronoun ; but when he 
speaks to the younger men, he is in sympathy with them, and 
his words show his willingness to associate them with him- 
self in the making up of his answer to the people ; and 
his words can not be fairly quoted as an instance of plu- 
ralis majestaticus. 

Ezra iv, 18: "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been 
plainly read before me." 

These are the words of Artaxerxes, or Smerdis, the 
Magian, who usurped the Persian throne in the absence 
of Cambyses. He was sustained in his government by the 
Magian priests in the effort to substitute the religion of 
the Magians in the place of the religion of the Persians. 
It is probable that the pronoun " us," as used by him, re- 
fers to the Magian priests, who were associated with him 
in the insurrectionary government. 

Isaiah vi, 8 : " Whom shall I send, and who will go for us ?" 

"The language here used carries our thoughts back to 
Genesis i, 26 : * Let us make man.' The work of which 
God's envoy would have to speak, was not inferior in im- 
portance to that work of creation; in fact, it was far 
greater. The plural pronoun can not be accounted for by 
supposing that the king addressed his ministering attend- 
ants. They wait to catch every intimation of his will 
(Ps. ciii, 20) ; they are not associated with him in counsel. 
Isaiah himself asks: 'With whom took he counsel?' 
(xl, 13). ' There is no angel in heaven,' it has been said, 
' to whom he does not stoop down through infinite degrees 
when he communicates his thoughts.' The Tresagion, if it 



APPENDIX. 229 

does not expressly propound the solution, implies it." (The 
Bible Commentary.) 

John hi, 11 : " Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that 
we do know, and testify that we have seen ; and ye receive not 
our witness." 

It does not seem reasonable to suppose that Jesus would 
use the style of majesty when speaking of himself during 
the days of his humiliation. He seldom used the plural 
pronoun when speaking to the people; indeed, I know of 
but one other instance of using it when referring to him- 
self; namely, Mark iv, 30. There may be other instances 
of his doing so, but I do not know of them. In the ex- 
amination of John iii, 11, the point to be settled is, to 
whom do the pronouns "we" and "our" refer? These 
pronouns have been referred by different commentators to 
Christ and the prophets, Christ and John the Baptist, 
Christ and the disciples, and to Christ, the Father, and 
the Holy Spirit. Each of these views will be examined 
separately. There can be no doubt that Christ himself was 
comprehended in the " we" and the " our" of the text; but 
it is not equally certain that " the prophets," " John the 
Baptist" and " the disciples," besides " the Father and the 
Holy Spirit," were embraced in these pronouns. It would 
seem that "the prophets" were not included. Christ was 
speaking of witnesses and testimony that belonged to the 
present, not the past. The words "speak" and "testify" 
are in the present tense. Christ was a speaker and witness 
then present, and the other members of the " we" must, 
like him, be speakers and witnesses existing at the same 
time with himself; hence the "we" does not comprehend 
the prophets, for they were of the past. John the Bap- 
tist does not seem to be comprehended in "we" and 
"our." Although John was a "witness" to Christ (John 
i, 7, 15), yet Christ did not receive his testimony. " Ye 
sent unto John, and he bare witness to the truth, but I 
receive not testimony from man." "But I have greater 



230 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

witness than that of John." (John v, 33, 34, 36.) On 
these texts I subjoin the following notes: "The Savior 
gives himself a place above all prophets, inasmuch as he 
declines human testimony." (Tholuck.) "John, by his 
testimony, added nothing to me ; I was what I was, and 
I am what I am, before John testified of me, and since." 
(Burkitt.) Jesus could not disclaim the benefit of John's 
testimony, and yet associate him with himself as a witness. 
It seems evident that the Baptist was not comprehended 
in the " we." The disciples of Christ have been witnesses 
for him since Pentecost, but they w T ere not witnesses for 
Christ during his stay on earth. Two points will make 
this plain. 

1. Although they were to a certain degree the re- 
cipients of the Holy Spirit, yet they had not received 
it in such a measure as qualified them to act as witnesses 
for Christ. There had been rich impartations of the Holy 
Spirit to Zacharias, Elizabeth, Mary, Simeon, Anna, John 
the Baptist, and possibly to others ; but the gift of power 
and of testimony was not given until Pentecost. "The 
Holy Spirit was not yet given ; because that Jesus was 
not yet glorified" (John vii, 39) ; "If I go not away, the 
Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I will 
send him unto you" (John xvi, 7) ; "Behold, I send the 
promise of my Father upon you ; but tarry ye at Jerusa- 
lem until ye be endued with power from on high" (Luke 
xxiv, 49). This last text was spoken by our Lord after 
his resurrection, and before Pentecost. Just before his 
ascension he said : ' ' Ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Spirit not many days hence." (Acts i, v.) 

2. Although the disciples were appointed to preach 
during the time of Christ's ministry, yet they were not 
appointed to act as witnesses until after his resurrection; 
that is, their work as witnesses was to begin at Pentecost. 
Their appointment as witnesses was not made until after 
his resurrection, and then they were to "tarry at Jerusa- 



APPENDIX. 231 

lem until endued with power." (Luke xxiv, 48, 49.) 
Christ said to them: " When the Comforter is come . . . 
ye also shall bear witness." (John xv, 26, 27.) Again: 
"Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is 
come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me." 
(Acts i, 8.) These words were spoken by Jesus ten days 
before Pentecost. In the days of Christ the disciples were 
intended as future witnesses; but Christ was speaking to 
Nicodemus of some persons who were associated with him at 
the time as witnesses. The disciples were not then witnesses, 
hence were not comprehended in the "we" and " our." The 
investigation so far has furnished proof that the "we" did 
not comprehend either the prophets, John the Baptist, or 
the disciples. 

1 will now adduce the evidence proving that the pro- 
nouns do refer to the Father and the Holy Spirit as united 
Avith Christ in the speaking and bearing witness. The 
"we" are said to " have seen," to "know," to "speak," 
and to " testify." It will not be questioned that the Father, 
Christ, and the Holy Spirit "have seen" and "know" 
all and everything that could have been seen and known 
by any and all witnesses. Nor will it be questioned that 
Christ spoke to men, for "he taught them as one having 
authority." The only points to be proven are, that the 
Father and the Holy Spirit then spoke to men, and that 
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit then acted as 
witnesses to men. That the Father then spoke to men, 
will be shown when we come to prove that the Father 
acted as a witness to the Son. During the human life- 
time of Christ he seems to have spoken for the Father 
and the Holy Spirit. 

The Father was a witness for Christ: "And lo, a 
voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased." (Matt, iii, 17.) The record of 
this testimony of the Father to Christ is repeated by all 
of the evangelists. (See Mark i, 11 ; Luke iii, 22; John 



232 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

i, 32-34.) Again, a similar testimony was given by the 
Father to Christ at his transfiguration. (Matt, xvii, 5; 
Mark ix, 7 ; Luke ix, 35 ; 2 Peter i, 17.) Our Lord claims 
the witness of the Father: "And the Father himself, 
which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me " (John v, 
37); "Him hath God the Father sealed" (John vi, 27); 
"The Father that sent me beareth witness of me" (John 
viii, 18.) 

Christ was a witness, and testified. He said of him- 
self: "What he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth." 
(John iii, 32.) "Jesus answered, and said unto them, 
Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true ; 
for I know whence I came, and whither I go." "I am 
one that beareth witness of myself." " I speak that which 
I have seen with my Father." (John viii, 14, 18, 38.) 
" Christ Jesu3 who, before Pontius Pilate, witnessed a good 
confession." (1 Tim. vi, 13.) "The faithful and true 
witness." (Rev. iii, 14.) 

The Holy Spirit also was a witness. Although his 
work as a witness was to a certain extent suspended dur- 
ing Christ's earthly ministry, nevertheless he testified to 
him and for him. Note the following evidence: At his 
baptism, "the Spirit of God" descended "like a dove, 
and" lighted "upon him." (Matt, iii, 16; Mark i, 10; 
Luke iii, 22; John i, 32, 33.) "Jesus returned in the 
power of the Spirit into Gallilee." "The Spirit of the 
Lord is upon me." (Luke iv, 14, 18.) "God giveth not 
the Spirit by measure unto him." (John iii, 34.) 

A calm survey of the foregoing Scriptures and argu- 
ments makes it reasonably evident that the pronouns "we" 
and "our," in John iii, 11, refer to the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Spirit — a Triune God. This conclusion 
would seem to be more probable from the fact that our 
Lord, in his conversation with Nicodemus, reveals truths 
that none but the Triune Godhead could know. Thus he 
reveals the necessity of the new birth, in order to under- 



APPENDIX. 233 

stand the nature of the kingdom of heaven. (Verses 3, 5.) 
He reveals the nature of the new birth. (Verses 4-6.) 
He reveals the necessity of his own death. (Verses 14, 15.) 
He reveals the Father's love for man. (Verse 16.) He 
reveals the doctrine of salvation by faith. (Verses 14-18.) 
These are items known only to the Godhead, and to which 
none but the Godhead could testify ; others might become 
acquainted with them and preach them, but none except 
the Three Persons in the Godhead could "testify" to 
them. 

It has been objected to the foregoing view of the case, 
that Christ's usage of icopdxafiev (" we have seen'*), for- 
bids the application of the passage to the Holy Spirit; 
but this objection is not well-founded, for Spaco is used in 
the Septuagint and in the New Testament to designate the 
fact that God knows — witness the following passages: "I 
have seen this people." (Deut. ix, 13.) "I have seen 
his ways." (Isaiah lvii, 18.) "Behold, I have seen it, 
saith the Lord;" "I have seen thine abominations;" "I 
have seen lawless deeds." (Jeremiah vii, 11; xiii, 27; 
xxiii, 13.) "His eye is too pure to behold evil." (Hab. 
i, 13.) "What he hath seen and heard, that he testi- 
fieth ;" " I speak that which I have seen." (John iii, 32 ; 
viii, 38.) 

Matthew hi, 15 : " Thus it becometh us to fulfill all right- 
eousness." 

This is not a case of pluralis majestaticus ; for our Lord 
is not speaking of himself alone, but of himself and John 
the Baptist. His words evidently refer to the reception 
of the sacrament of baptism ; connected with this, there 
were two parties — John the administrator, and Christ the 
subject. John objected to his administering the ordinance 
to Jesus, and Jesus urged John to the discharge of their 
mutual duty; the pronoun "us" refers to Christ and 
John. 

20 



234 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 

2 Corinthians i, 8 : " For we would not, brethren, have 
you ignorant of our trouble, which came to us in Asia." 

The pronouns "we," " our," "us," probably refer to 
Paul, Gaius, and Aristarchus, who together experienced 
serious troubles in Ephesus. (See Acts xix, 23-41.) 

1 Thessalonians ii, 18 : " Wherefore we would have come 
unto you, even I Paul." 

The "we" of this text includes Paul, Silvanus, and 
Timotheus. (See chapter i, 1.) This text might be para- 
phrased thus: "I, Silvanus, and Timotheus would have 
come unto you; I certainly would have come." 

Hebrews xiii, 18 : " Pray for us : we trust we have a good 
conscience." 

The " us " and " we " in this text evidently refer to 
the brethren who are alluded to id the words: "Them 
that have the rule over you." (Verses 7, 17, 24.) Paul 
asked the Hebrews to pray for him and the other pastors. 

I have now examined every case of the so-called plu- 
ralis majestaticus to which my attention has been called, 
and I have failed to find any case that has warranted the 
usage of the name. As a style of speech it is common 
enough among the royalty of to-day, but I sincerely doubt 
whether you can find any iustance of it in the Holy Scrip- 
tures. I am left to the conclusion that the use of plural 
pronouns by Deity does unquestionably prove a plurality 
of persons in the Godhead. 



Zbc BnD, 



C 141 82-« 








Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 



v V 

«?> ^ °*^ PreservationTechnologies 

» ^V ^J^ **J A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

^ t # # *J* 111 Thomson Park Drive 

>>0 ♦ * yr»»* ■» ^v5 Cranberry Township PA 16066 






(724)779-2111 



4 o 




■*o T 








A 




» 0, V 








• «- *> , V 




*>♦.....;% 



\ V **W* • « o 










O \V - O • • ^ %A A V 






,0 





4 O * 

^ ^ *. 




^. 









FEB 82 

N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 



^^> " • • • « O * « . 





